Case 2408804/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Drury v S J Bargh Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2408804/2020
- Decision date
- 9 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Warren REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Drury
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely at Manchester by CVP on 1 April 2021 before Employment Judge Warren. The tribunal rejected the unfair dismissal claim, recording that it was ill-founded and that the claimant was fairly dismissed.
The tribunal upheld the breach of contract claim. It found that the respondent failed to give the claimant notice or pay in lieu of notice, and held that the claimant was entitled to six weeks' notice pay. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £2,403.69 gross, with the claimant responsible for tax and national insurance. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal said the unfair dismissal claim was ill-founded and that the claimant was fairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent failed to give notice or pay in lieu of notice and held that the claimant was entitled to six weeks' notice pay. The award was stated to be gross, with the claimant responsible for tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £2,404 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,404
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £2,404
- 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.