Case 2419873/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Jacquemin v Anthology Pub and Kitchen Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2419873/2020
- Decision date
- 5 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Jacquemin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in Mr F Jacquemin v Anthology Pub and Kitchen Limited. The tribunal recorded that no award would be made under Regulation 15 of the TUPE Regulations 2006 unless, within 21 days, the claimant explained why it was not reasonably practicable to present that claim within three months of the February 2020 transfer as required by Regulation 15(12).
On the substantive money claims, Employment Judge Franey found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract as to notice and awarded damages of £376.26. The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,255.50 gross.
The hearing listed for 27 September 2021 was cancelled. The attached interest notice stated that unpaid tribunal awards would carry interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if not paid within 14 days of the relevant decision day, identified as 5 October 2021, with a calculation day of 6 October 2021 and a stipulated rate of 8%.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages. | Upheld | — | £376 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the gross sum. | Upheld | — | £1,256 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,632
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Regulation 15(12) TUPE Regulations 2006
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.