Case 2400156/2021 · Employment Tribunal
David Bell v Urmston E Cigs Ltd and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 2400156/2021
- Decision date
- 25 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Serr Appearances
- Venue
- Manchester Via CVP
Parties
3 namedClaimant
David Bell
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim against the second respondent, NJ Vapes Urmston Ltd, was dismissed on withdrawal. As to Urmston E Cigs Ltd, the tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and that his redundancy payment claim was well founded, awarding £1,071.
The tribunal also held that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was well founded. It found that he was not entitled to a basic award under s.122(4)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996, but awarded a compensatory award of £1,994.20.
In addition, the tribunal found that the respondent had breached contract in respect of notice and ordered £765 in damages. It further found that holiday entitlement had not been paid and awarded £856.80, and made an award of £612 pursuant to s.38 Employment Act 2002.
The total monetary award was £5,299 gross. The recoupment notice recorded a prescribed element of £1,744.20 for the period 9 October 2020 to 31 January 2021, with an excess over the prescribed element of £3,554.80.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim against the second respondent, NJ Vapes Urmston Ltd, dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £1,071 |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was well founded. The tribunal held the claimant was not entitled to a basic award under s.122(4)(a) ERA 1996 and awarded a compensatory award of £1,994.20. | Upheld | — | £1,994 |
| Breach of contract | Damages awarded for breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £765 |
| Holiday pay | The respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £857 |
| Other | Award made pursuant to s.38 Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £612 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,299
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,994
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.122(4)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.