Case 2501209/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Anthony L Aitkens v Mr Malcolm Murphy — 2020
- Case reference
- 2501209/2020
- Decision date
- 16 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Anthony L Aitkens
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Newcastle CFCTC hearing on 16 September 2020, before Employment Judge Arullendran, Mr Anthony L Aitkens brought claims against Mr Malcolm Murphy for holiday pay, notice pay and a redundancy payment. The tribunal dismissed the holiday pay claim as not well-founded.
The tribunal found the notice pay claim well founded and ordered the Respondent to pay £2,160.00. It recorded that this was a net award and that the Respondent would be liable to the Inland Revenue for any tax and national insurance payments on it.
The tribunal also found the redundancy payment claim well founded and ordered the Respondent to pay £5,400.00. It stated that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 did not apply. The total award was £7,560.00.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The award was stated to be net, and the Respondent was liable to the Inland Revenue for any tax and national insurance payments on it. | Upheld | — | £2,160 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claim for a redundancy payment well-founded and ordered payment of £5,400. | Upheld | — | £5,400 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,560
- 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.