Case 2600832/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Fenwick v Atlas Facilities Management Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2600832/2021
- Decision date
- 26 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Victoria Butler
- Panel members
- Mr G Austin, Ms F Betts
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Fenwick
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal, sitting remotely by CVP, heard the case on 25 August 2021 before Employment Judge Victoria Butler with Mr G Austin and Ms F Betts as lay members. In its unanimous judgment, the tribunal found that Mr J Fenwick’s claim that he had been automatically unfairly dismissed was well-founded and succeeded.
The tribunal also rejected the separate claim that Atlas Facilities Management Limited had failed to pay holiday entitlement, finding that claim was not well-founded and failed. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested, so the published decision records the outcomes but does not set out the tribunal’s detailed reasoning or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states only that the claim that the Claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed was well-founded and succeeded. No underlying statutory basis for the automatic unfair dismissal finding is given in the written record. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states only that the claim that the Respondent failed to pay holiday entitlement was not well-founded and failed. No amount was recorded. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.