Case 2402546/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Woodcock v Better Bathrooms (UK) Limited (in administration) and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 2402546/2019
- Decision date
- 4 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr A Woodcock
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal entered judgment against the first respondent under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the first respondent had declined to file a response form resisting the claims.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract relating to notice of termination. The first respondent was ordered to pay £10,384.00 as compensation for that breach. The judgment stated this was a net sum calculated by reference to gross pay because of the likelihood that the claimant would have to pay tax on the sum as post-employment notice pay.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Judgment was made against the first respondent under rule 21 after the first respondent declined to file a response resisting the claims. The judgment does not state an award against the second respondent. | Upheld | — | £10,384 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,384
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £10,384
- compensatory remedy recorded
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.