Case 2402475/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Saward v Better Bathrooms (UK) Limited (in administration) and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 2402475/2019
- Decision date
- 4 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr J Saward
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was made against the first respondent under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, after the first respondent declined to file a response form resisting the claims.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in relation to notice of termination and ordered the first respondent to pay £12,000.00. It also found that the claim for payment for annual leave accrued but untaken was well-founded and ordered payment of £1,724.45 gross.
The notice records that interest would accrue under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if the judgment sums were not paid within 14 days, but no interest amount was awarded in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract relating to notice of termination and awarded compensation against the first respondent. | Upheld | — | £12,000 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claim for payment for annual leave accrued but untaken was well-founded and awarded a gross sum against the first respondent. | Upheld | — | £1,724 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,724
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.