Case 2204250/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Staples v Phasor Solutions Limited (in administration) Heard via Cloud Video Platform (London Central) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2204250/2020
- Decision date
- 21 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Staples
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Davidson, sitting alone and hearing the case via Cloud Video Platform, issued a corrected judgment on 21 October 2021 in favour of Mr E Staples against Phasor Solutions Limited (in administration). The extracted text records the tribunal's monetary awards rather than detailed reasons, and notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
The tribunal awarded arrears of pay of £9,027.78 less £2,940 received from SRP, arrears of pension of £182.75, and notice pay of £10,833.34 less £1,076 received from SRP. Those items total £16,027.86. It also awarded holiday pay of £2,000 less £754.49 received from SRP, producing £1,245.51.
In addition, the tribunal awarded a protective award of 90 days' pay from 20 April 2020, assessed at £16,027.40. The total sum awarded in the corrected judgment was £33,300.77.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment awards arrears of pay (£9,027.78 less £2,940 received from SRP), arrears of pension (£182.75), and notice pay (£10,833.34 less £1,076 received from SRP), which together total £16,027.86. | Upheld | — | £16,028 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay was awarded at £2,000 less £754.49 received from SRP, giving £1,245.51. | Upheld | — | £1,246 |
| Other | A protective award of 90 days' pay from 20 April 2020 was awarded at £16,027.40. Protective award is not covered by the claim_type enum. | Upheld | — | £16,027 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £33,301
- 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.