Case 2501064/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Christopher Newcombe v Deniz Atay trading as Nisa Local Heard: Remotely (by video link) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2501064/2021
- Decision date
- 2 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Christopher Newcombe
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal amended the respondent’s name to Deniz Atay trading as Nisa Local and dispensed with re-service. The hearing was conducted remotely by video link on 30 September 2021 before Employment Judge S Shore, with the claimant appearing in person and no appearance for the respondent.
The claimant’s claim for breach of contract, described as non-payment of notice pay, was found well-founded and succeeded. The tribunal ordered payment of £593.34 gross, representing 2 weeks at £296.67, before deduction of tax and National Insurance.
The claimant’s claim for failure to pay statutory redundancy payment was also found well-founded and succeeded. The tribunal ordered payment of £4,895.05, calculated as 11 years’ service x 1.5 x £296.67. The judgment recorded that no income tax or National Insurance is deductible from that sum. The combined award was £5,488.39.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Non-payment of notice pay. The tribunal awarded 2 weeks at £296.67 gross, before deduction of tax and National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £593 |
| Redundancy | Failure to pay statutory redundancy payment. The tribunal awarded £4,895.05, calculated as 11 years' service x 1.5 x £296.67, with no income tax or National Insurance deductible. | Upheld | — | £4,895 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,488
- 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.