Case 2301431/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Bennett Senior. v Joshua Barker Second Respondent: Bathrooms DSI Ltd. — 2021
- Case reference
- 2301431/2020
- Decision date
- 15 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hargrove Representation
- Venue
- remotely Croydon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Bennett Senior.
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal added Bathrooms DSI Ltd as second respondent without reservice. It then found the claimant's wrongful dismissal claim against that second respondent well-founded.
The award made was £14,616.00, described in the judgment as notice pay due from 7 February 2020 to 31 August 2021, the date of termination of the claimant's apprenticeship. The judgment does not break the sum into separate heads of loss beyond that notice-pay figure.
The claims against the first respondent, Joshua Barker, were dismissed as not well-founded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Bathrooms DSI Ltd was added as second respondent without reservice. The tribunal found the wrongful dismissal claim against the second respondent well-founded and ordered it to pay £14,616.00 described as notice pay due from 7 February 2020 to 31 August 2021, the date of termination of the claimant's apprenticeship. | Upheld | — | £14,616 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,616
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £14,616
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.