Case 2411715/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Butterfield v John Shaw and Son Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2411715/2023
- Decision date
- 2 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Thompson
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Butterfield
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Manchester Employment Tribunal on 13 and 20 June 2024, Employment Judge Thompson, sitting alone, held that Mr P Butterfield’s complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded.
The tribunal dismissed the claims for notice pay, redundancy pay and holiday pay as not well founded. The judgment does not set out any separate monetary awards for those dismissed claims.
On remedy, the basic award was assessed at £0 because the claimant had already received a redundancy payment in excess of the value of the basic award. The respondent was ordered to pay a compensatory award of £350, making the total award £350.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal was found well-founded. The tribunal made a basic award of £0 because the claimant had already received a redundancy payment in excess of the basic award, and a compensatory award of £350. | Upheld | — | £350 |
| Breach of contract | The claim for notice pay was dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The claim for redundancy pay was dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim for holiday pay was dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £350
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £350
- 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.