Case 2600063/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Craig Naylor v BW (Gardening) Ltd (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2600063/2023
- Decision date
- 12 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. Craig Naylor
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim against Xbite Ltd was dismissed after the claimant withdrew it. The judgment does not record any substantive determination against that respondent beyond the withdrawal.
As to the remaining respondent, BW (Gardening) Ltd, the tribunal recorded that no valid response was presented on time and that a determination could properly be made under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice.
The respondent was ordered to pay damages of £3,998.77. No separate split of the award by head of loss is recorded in the judgment, and no additional remedy findings are stated.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claim against Xbite Ltd was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | BW (Gardening) Ltd failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge made a determination under Rule 21 and found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £3,999 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,999
- 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.