Case 2600819/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Fox v Linx Logistics Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2600819/2019
- Decision date
- 21 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
- Panel members
- Mrs B Tidd, Mr K Libetta
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Fox
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAfter hearing evidence and submissions on 20-21 November 2019, the tribunal unanimously held that the claimant's automatic unfair dismissal claim under Employment Rights Act 1996 s.103A was well-founded and succeeded. The tribunal also rejected the claim for failure to pay outstanding holiday pay on termination, citing Working Time Regulations 1998 regulations 14 and 30.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been wrongfully dismissed and that the claim for notice pay therefore succeeded. The claim for unlawful deduction from wages under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not finally determined at this hearing and was adjourned to a further hearing.
The judgment records that there would be a further hearing to determine remedy. No final monetary award is set out in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under Employment Rights Act 1996 s.103A. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Claim for outstanding holiday pay on termination dismissed under Working Time Regulations 1998 regulations 14 and 30. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Claim for notice pay succeeded after the tribunal found the claimant was wrongfully dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim adjourned to be considered at a further hearing; no final determination in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
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.