Case 1804042/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Proffitt (counsel) For the v 1 and 2: Mr M Haycox 3: Mr Kelly in person — 2024
- Case reference
- 1804042/2023
- Decision date
- 9 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies Appearances
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Proffitt (counsel) For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 9 May 2024 before Employment Judge Davies, the Claimant withdrew the claims against the Third Respondent. The complaints of age-related harassment against the First and Second Respondents were also dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant.
The Second Respondent's response to the complaints of unfair dismissal (liability), failure to pay notice pay in breach of contract, failure to pay for accrued but untaken holiday, and entitlement to a redundancy payment was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success under Employment Tribunal Rule 37. The written record therefore disposed of those issues on the basis of the Claimant's case.
Under Employment Tribunal Rule 21, the tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint against the Second Respondent well-founded and upheld it, with remedy to be determined at a later hearing. It also upheld the notice pay claim and ordered payment of £4,780.56, upheld the holiday pay claim and ordered payment of £637.40, and found the Claimant entitled to a redundancy payment of £11,951.40.
The judgment records those sums as gross amounts. It also states that if any tax or national insurance is payable in respect of notice pay or holiday pay, the Claimant is responsible for paying it.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Age-related harassment complaints against the First and Second Respondents; dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Liability only; the remedy payable by the Second Respondent was to be determined at a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Failure to pay notice pay in breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £4,781 |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay for accrued but untaken holiday. | Upheld | — | £637 |
| Redundancy | Claimant held entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £11,951 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,369
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- Employment Tribunal Rule 37
- Employment Tribunal Rule 21
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.