Case 2402690/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Corbett v Grifen Sprinkler Solutions limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402690/2021
- Decision date
- 5 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Liz Ord
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Corbett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Manchester on 11 and 12 August 2022, Employment Judge Liz Ord heard Mr G Corbett’s claim against Grifen Sprinkler Solutions Limited. The tribunal held that the respondent was in breach of contract because it had not paid the claimant one month’s notice pay and the employer’s pension contribution for the notice period.
The tribunal ordered damages equivalent to one month’s gross wages of £4,583.33, subject to deductions required for tax and national insurance, together with the employer’s monthly pension contribution of £109.41. The resulting award was £4,692.74 in total.
The respondent’s counterclaim was also determined and was dismissed as not well-founded. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing, and no further written reasons were provided in the record supplied here.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Tribunal held the respondent was in breach of contract for not paying one month’s notice pay and the employer’s pension contribution for the notice period. The wage element was £4,583.33 subject to deductions for tax and national insurance, plus £109.41 for the pension contribution. | Upheld | — | £4,693 |
| Other | The respondent’s counterclaim was found not well-founded and was dismissed. The judgment does not give further particulars of the counterclaim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,693
- 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.