Case 2416527/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Jones v Oakfield Capital Investment Limited (Dissolved) and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 2416527/2019
- Decision date
- 19 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr A Jones
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment, with Employment Judge Batten deciding the case on the papers. The tribunal found that Mr A Jones had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,230.00.
The tribunal also found that the respondent was in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £960.00 net. In addition, it found that holiday entitlement due at the termination of employment had not been paid, and ordered £820.00 gross.
The tribunal further found that there had been unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered £1,220.00 gross. The judgment included the standard notice under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 stating that unpaid sums may carry interest if not paid within the relevant period, but no separate interest figure was assessed in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,230.00. | Upheld | — | £1,230 |
| Breach of contract | Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages in the net sum of £960.00. | Upheld | — | £960 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay holiday entitlement due at termination and ordered payment of £820.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £820 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £1,220.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,220 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,230
- 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.