Case 2206946/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Jones, Counsel For both the v Laser Metal Fabrication Ltd and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 2206946/2018
- Decision date
- 11 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cassel Appearances
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr B Jones, Counsel For both the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, at Bury St Edmunds on 31 January 2020 before Employment Judge Cassel, found that Mr S Chapman was unfairly dismissed by the first respondent, Laser Metal Fabrication Limited (in Administration). The respondents did not attend and were not represented. The written judgment records only that finding and does not set out further reasoning in the extracted text provided.
The tribunal then ordered the second respondent, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, to pay the claimant three sums: a basic award of £1,524, notice pay of £1,046, and holiday pay of £209.20. Those figures total £2,779.20. The judgment states that the recoupment provisions do not apply.
No separate discrimination, whistleblowing, or other statutory claims are determined in the extracted text. The record provided does not identify any lay members, and it does not quote any named legal test or statutory provision beyond the unfair dismissal finding and the recoupment note.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by the first respondent and orders the second respondent to pay a basic award of £1,524, notice pay of £1,046, and holiday pay of £209.20, totalling £2,779.20. The text does not separately label the notice pay or holiday pay as standalone claims. | Upheld | — | £2,779 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,779
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,524
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,255
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.