Case 2504288/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A McMahon v WK2 Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2504288/2019
- Decision date
- 12 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A McMahon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which the tribunal dealt with claims by Mr A McMahon against WK2 Limited. The tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £1,576.32.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,940.80. It further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £599.33.
The complaint of unfair dismissal was dismissed because the claimant withdrew that complaint. The total monetary award recorded by the judgment is £6,116.45.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 of £1,576.32. | Upheld | — | £1,576 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,940.80. | Upheld | — | £3,941 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £599.33. | Upheld | — | £599 |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed following a withdrawal by the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,116
- 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.