Case 2304964/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. A Foster v Birchington Village Bakery Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2304964/2019
- Decision date
- 8 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sage Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. A Foster
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment under the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal found that Birchington Village Bakery Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr. A Foster's wages and ordered payment of £772.69 gross.
It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £4,298.76. In addition, the tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £6,448.14.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £477.64. The hearing listed for 5 May 2020 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £772.69 for an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £773 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £4,298.76. | Upheld | — | £4,299 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £6,448.14. | Upheld | — | £6,448 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal ordered payment of £477.64 for unpaid holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £478 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,997
- 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.