Case 2201435/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Cavendish Engineers Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2201435/2020
- Decision date
- 29 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 grounds of resistance. Employment Judge Adkin therefore made a rule 21 determination on the papers and held that Cavendish Engineers Ltd had wrongfully and in breach of contract failed to pay Mr Raymond Robert his entitlement to contractual notice pay.
The judgment did not determine remedy for that contract claim. It also said that liability and remedy for the unfair dismissal claim, whether ordinary under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or automatically unfair under regulation 7(1) of TUPE 2006, and for the disability discrimination claims under sections 13, 15 and 19 and sections 20 to 21 of the Equality Act 2010, would be determined at a one-day in-person hearing on 29 October 2020. The respondent was only entitled to take part in that hearing to the extent permitted by the judge who heard it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Rule 21 judgment: the tribunal held that the respondent wrongfully and in breach of contract failed to pay the claimant his entitlement to contractual notice pay. Remedy for that claim was reserved to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 21 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 7(1) TUPE 2006
- sections 13, 15, 19 and 20-21 Equality Act 2010
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.