Case 2419494/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Sherwood v Raw Concept Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2419494/2020
- Decision date
- 4 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Sherwood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr N Sherwood, attended the hearing unrepresented. Raw Concept Limited did not attend and gave no reason. The tribunal sat in Manchester by CVP before Employment Judge Johnson on 30 September 2022, and the written record was sent to the parties on 4 October 2022.
On jurisdiction, the tribunal held that the claimant's complaint was presented in time because his effective date of termination was 5 September 2022. It reached that conclusion because no notice was given and the respondent was not entitled to summarily dismiss the claimant.
On the merits, the claimant's complaint for one month's notice pay succeeded and the tribunal awarded £2,666.66 gross. The claimant's complaint for 27 days' unpaid annual leave entitlement also succeeded and the tribunal awarded £2,402.66 gross.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a total of £5,069.32 in respect of the two successful complaints. The written record also included the standard tribunal notice about interest, but no separate interest amount was quantified in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Complaint seeking one month's notice pay; the tribunal held the respondent was not entitled to summarily dismiss the claimant and treated the effective date of termination as 5 September 2022. | Upheld | — | £2,667 |
| Holiday pay | Complaint seeking payment for 27 days' unpaid annual leave entitlement. | Upheld | — | £2,403 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,069
- 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.