Case 2302949/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Alfie Roberts v Roadmarking Excel Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2302949/2020
- Decision date
- 29 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Apted Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Alfie Roberts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the remote CVP hearing on 29 April 2021 before Employment Judge Apted, the tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim and his claim for unlawful deduction of wages. The judgment records that the hearing was remote because of Covid-19, that both parties were self-represented, and that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The tribunal found that the respondent had breached the contract by dismissing the claimant without notice. It awarded £375 gross as damages for that breach.
The tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay £150 for 2 days' accrued but untaken leave as at the date of termination. No other monetary remedy is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent breached contract by dismissing the claimant without notice and awarded £375 gross as damages. | Upheld | — | £375 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal ordered £150 for 2 days' accrued but untaken leave as at the date of termination. The extracted text does not separately label this as a claim type, so it is coded as holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £150 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £525
- 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.