Case 2402895/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Barlow v Paul Walsh Construction Ltd Heard by Cloud video — 2021
- Case reference
- 2402895/2021
- Decision date
- 23 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reed Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Barlow
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the remote hearing on 16 August 2021, before Employment Judge Reed and with no attendance by the respondent, the tribunal held that Paul Walsh Construction Ltd failed to give the claimant notice of dismissal. It therefore found a breach of contract and awarded damages of £1,264.
The tribunal also found that Mr S Barlow was unfairly dismissed. It made no order for reinstatement or re-engagement. It recorded that there was no basic award because the claimant had received his statutory redundancy payment, and it awarded a compensatory award of £2,380.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. The judgment was sent to the parties on 23 August 2021.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the respondent breached the claimant's contract by failing to give notice of dismissal and awarded damages of £1,264. | Upheld | — | £1,264 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. No order was made for reinstatement or re-engagement, no basic award was made because the claimant had received his statutory redundancy payment, and a compensatory award of £2,380 was made. | Upheld | — | £2,380 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,644
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £2,380
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.