Case 2300482/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I P Sherrin v Full Works Installations Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300482/2023
- Decision date
- 16 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flanagan
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I P Sherrin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Flanagan, sitting alone, heard the case at London South on 16 October 2023. The claimant, Mr I P Sherrin, was in person and the respondent did not attend or have representation. The judgment records that the respondent’s details were substituted from Mr James Guest to Full Works Installations Ltd.
The tribunal held that the claimant’s claim for a redundancy payment was well founded and awarded him £8,565. It also held that his claim for notice pay was well founded and awarded £10,246.15 for unpaid notice pay.
The tribunal further held that the claimant’s claim for accrued but untaken holiday pay was well founded and awarded £2,049.15 for unpaid holiday pay. The judgment does not record any reduction to these sums or any further remedy beyond the three amounts awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claim for redundancy payment was well founded and awarded £8,565. | Upheld | — | £8,565 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claim for notice pay was well founded and awarded £10,246.15 for unpaid notice pay. | Upheld | — | £10,246 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claim for accrued but untaken holiday pay was well founded and awarded £2,049.15 for unpaid holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £2,049 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,860
- 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.