Case 2600142/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Aston v LB Automotive Limited Trading as Bullivants — 2023
- Case reference
- 2600142/2023
- Decision date
- 27 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Aston
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Nottingham Employment Tribunals on 16 January 2023. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment was therefore issued on liability and remedy without a contested hearing, and the hearing listed for 12 May 2023 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that Mr S Aston was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. On that basis, the respondent was ordered to pay damages of £4,374.99 gross. The judgment does not split that sum into further sub-heads.
The tribunal also found that Mr Aston was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £6,430. No discrimination, unfair dismissal, or other claim is recorded in the judgment text supplied. The combined monetary total of the award is £10,804.99.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £4,374.99 gross. | Upheld | — | £4,375 |
| Redundancy | The judgment states the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment of £6,430. | Upheld | — | £6,430 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,805
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.