Case 2600198/2019 · Employment Tribunal

In Person. For the First v Bantam Packaging Ltd and 2 others — 2019

Case reference: 2600198/2019
Decision date: 26 September 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Clark Representation
Venue: Nottingham

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

4 named

Claimant

In Person. For the First

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the final hearing in Nottingham on 26 September 2019 before Employment Judge Clark, Mr T Czapski succeeded in his claim for a statutory redundancy payment against Bantam Packaging Ltd. The tribunal held that the first respondent was liable to pay a statutory redundancy payment of £6,107.40.

The tribunal also held that the claims for holiday pay accrued but untaken at the date of termination and for unlawful deduction from wages succeeded in the total sum of £3,547.12. It recorded that the amount owing had already been paid by the first respondent and that no further sums were due.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Redundancy	The tribunal held that the claim for a statutory redundancy payment succeeded and that the first respondent was liable to pay £6,107.40.	Upheld	—	£6,107
Holiday pay	The tribunal held that the claim for holiday pay accrued but untaken at termination succeeded as part of a combined award of £3,547.12 with unlawful deduction from wages. The judgment did not split that figure between the two claims and recorded that the amount owing had already been paid, so no further sums were due.	Upheld	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal held that the unlawful deduction from wages claim succeeded as part of a combined award of £3,547.12 with holiday pay. The judgment did not split that figure between the two claims and recorded that the amount owing had already been paid, so no further sums were due.	Upheld	—	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £9,655; across all upheld claims

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.