Case 2300689/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr William Smith v P.R. Services (Cuxton) Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2300689/2020
- Decision date
- 15 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr William Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a response within the stipulated time, and the tribunal issued a Rule 21 judgment. It found that Mr William Smith was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy, and the hearing listed for 11 July 2020 was cancelled.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a redundancy payment of £8,662.50, damages of £6,050.00 for breach of contract in respect of notice, £550.00 for unauthorised deductions, and £1,047.00 for pension contributions deducted from salary but not paid into the pension scheme and unpaid employer contributions. The total payable was £16,669.50; no separate compensatory award for the unfair dismissal finding was stated in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy. No separate compensatory figure was specified in the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | Redundancy payment ordered in the sum of £8,662.50. | Upheld | — | £8,663 |
| Breach of contract | Damages awarded for breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £6,050 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Award for unauthorised deductions. | Upheld | — | £550 |
| Other | Sum representing pension contributions deducted from salary but not paid into the pension scheme and unpaid employer contributions. | Upheld | — | £1,047 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,670
- 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.