Case 1805004/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Copley v Aspect Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1805004/2022
- Decision date
- 10 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Copley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in favour of the claimant, Mr L Copley, against Aspect Services Limited. The tribunal ordered payment of accrued holiday pay of £4,048.06, found that the claimant had been dismissed without notice in breach of contract and awarded damages of £13,850.01, and found a separate breach of contract for unpaid expenses resulting in damages of £310.29.
The tribunal dismissed the claim for compensation relating to the respondent's failure to pay over NEST pension contributions to the appropriate authority, because it had no jurisdiction to consider that claim. It also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £1,713. The total monetary award on the judgment was £19,921.36.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Accrued holiday pay due on termination of employment. | Upheld | — | £4,048 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed without notice in breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £13,850 |
| Other | Claim for compensation for failure to pay over NEST pension contributions to the appropriate authority was dismissed because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Failure to reimburse expenses. | Upheld | — | £310 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £1,713 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £19,921
- across all upheld claims
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.