Case 2405262/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Syty v Better Bathrooms (UK) Limited (in administration) and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 2405262/2019
- Decision date
- 4 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr R Syty
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was made against the first respondent under rule 21 because the first respondent had declined to file a response resisting the claims. The tribunal found the claim for payment for annual leave accrued but untaken to be well-founded and ordered the first respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £130.05.
The claimant's complaints about redundancy pay, unlawful deductions from pay and notice pay were dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. The judgment records that payment for those matters had been received from the second respondent.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The judgment describes this as payment for annual leave accrued but untaken. | Upheld | — | £130 |
| Redundancy | Dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant, payment having been received from the second respondent. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant, payment having been received from the second respondent. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay complaint is treated as breach of contract; it was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant, payment having been received from the second respondent. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £130
- 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.