Case 1806948/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Bentley v Daniel J Ingram Farmers — 2020
- Case reference
- 1806948/2019
- Decision date
- 21 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Bentley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs D Bentley presented claims of unfair dismissal, redundancy pay, unauthorised deduction from wages, and breach of contract in respect of notice pay against Daniel J Ingram Farmers. The respondent was sent notice of the claim on 27 November 2019 but did not present a response.
Under Rule 21, Employment Judge Shepherd entered judgment on 21 February 2020. The tribunal recorded that the claims of unfair dismissal, redundancy pay, unauthorised deduction from wages, and breach of contract - notice pay succeeded.
The judgment did not determine the amount due on those successful claims. It provided that the remedy was to be determined at a Remedy Hearing, and converted the hearing listed for 18 March 2020 into a Remedy Hearing for the successful claims.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Rule 21 judgment; the claim succeeded and remedy was reserved to a later Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | Rule 21 judgment; the claim succeeded and remedy was reserved to a later Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to 'unauthorised deduction from wages'; the claim succeeded and remedy was reserved to a later Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment specifies 'breach of contract – notice pay'; the claim succeeded and remedy was reserved to a later Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
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.