Case 2305167/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Roberts v Neon Leisure Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2305167/2019
- Decision date
- 28 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge HYDE Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Roberts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge Hyde determined the case on the papers. The tribunal found that Mr G Roberts had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered Neon Leisure Ltd to pay damages of £9,840.54, calculated as three months' net wages at £3,280.18 per month.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy, but it did not award a redundancy payment of £2,100 because Mr Roberts agreed that this sum had already been paid to him by the respondent. No further hearing was required.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £9,840.54, described as 3 months' net wages at £3,280.18 per month. | Upheld | — | £9,841 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy but was not entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,100 because he agreed that this sum had already been paid to him by the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,841
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.