Case 2300220/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Batkin v Waldegrave Motor Engineering Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300220/2022
- Decision date
- 26 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Webster Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Batkin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment by Employment Judge Webster Case on the papers after the respondent failed to provide a response. The judge said the claimant had provided sufficient information in the ET1 and schedule of loss to make a judgment without a hearing, and noted that the respondent was still a registered limited company according to Companies House information.
The tribunal awarded £6,256 as an unpaid statutory redundancy payment, £9,895 as a compensatory award, £2,012.40 for unpaid holiday pay, and £2,236 for failure to provide a section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996 statement of terms of employment. The total payable was £20,399.40.
The judgment also recorded that no separate awards were made for the basic award or notice pay to avoid double recovery by the claimant, given the awards made for redundancy payment and loss of earnings.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment awarded a compensatory award of £9,895. Paragraph 4 says no separate basic award or notice pay was made to avoid double recovery. | Upheld | — | £9,895 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment listed breach of contract among the claims, but did not make a separate award for it. Paragraph 4 says no separate award was made for notice pay to avoid double recovery. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Awarded as unpaid holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £2,012 |
| Redundancy | Awarded as unpaid statutory redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £6,256 |
| Other | Awarded for failure to provide a section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996 statement of terms of employment. | Upheld | — | £2,236 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,399
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £9,895
- 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.