Case 2405976/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Neary v SASSF Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2405976/2021
- Decision date
- 29 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Neary
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 29 July 2021, under Rule 21 and in the absence of any response form defending the claim, the listed hearing on 30 July 2021 was cancelled and judgment was entered on the papers. The tribunal found that Mr Neary had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages equivalent to seven weeks' pay in the sum of £2,048.00.
The tribunal also found that Mr Neary was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,316.17. The judgment records that the calculation was based on his age of 24 at dismissal and seven complete years of service. The complaint in respect of holiday pay was dismissed because the claimant had not provided any information about the amount claimed.
The attached interest notice stated that unpaid sums would carry interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if not paid within 14 days after the relevant decision day, at the stipulated rate of 8%, but the judgment did not set out a separate interest award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Damages awarded for notice, described by the tribunal as seven weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £2,048 |
| Redundancy | Redundancy payment awarded; the tribunal recorded that the claimant was aged 24 at dismissal and had 7 complete years of service. | Upheld | — | £1,316 |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed because the claimant had not provided any information about the amount claimed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,364
- 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.