Case 2419905/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Fisher v A.B.C.>Concrete Direct Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2419905/2020
- Decision date
- 14 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Fisher
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, proceeding under Rule 21, found that Mr G Fisher had been unfairly dismissed by A.B.C.>Concrete Direct Limited. It also found that he was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, that the respondent had failed to pay his holiday entitlement, and that it had made unlawful deductions from his wages.
In addition, the tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide itemised pay statements. The judgment records these findings as part of the liability decision only and does not allocate any separate monetary sums to each head of claim.
Remedy was not decided in this judgment. The tribunal stated that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled would be determined at a Remedy Hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The respondent was found to have failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent was found to have made unlawful deductions from the claimant’s wages. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The respondent failed to provide the claimant with itemised pay statements. | Upheld | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.