Case 2403237/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Sisman v Will Nixon Construction Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2403237/2020
- Decision date
- 15 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Sisman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningRegional Employment Judge Franey, sitting alone, heard the case by video conference on 4 January 2021. The respondent did not attend. The tribunal dealt with two claims: breach of contract and redundancy payment.
The breach of contract complaint succeeded in relation to four weeks' notice of termination. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £3,420.00 in damages, calculated using gross weekly pay because it was likely to be subject to tax as post-employment notice pay.
The redundancy payment complaint also succeeded. The tribunal held that the claimant had a right to a statutory redundancy payment under Part XI of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and ordered payment of £2,565.00. The total sum payable by the respondent was £5,985.00.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim for four weeks' notice of termination succeeded; damages were assessed using gross weekly pay because the tribunal considered the sum likely to be subject to tax as post-employment notice pay. | Upheld | — | £3,420 |
| Redundancy | Claim for a statutory redundancy payment under Part XI of the Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded. | Upheld | — | £2,565 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,985
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Part XI Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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.