Case 2601038/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Smith v Findlay Transport Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2601038/2020
- Decision date
- 8 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge Hutchinson recorded three monetary awards in favour of Mr B Smith against Findlay Transport Ltd. The tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £1,050.00.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and held that he was entitled to a redundancy payment of £5,512.50. In addition, it found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £315.00.
The combined amount ordered by the judgment is £6,877.50. The extracted judgment does not record any separate legal tests, lay members, or additional findings beyond these three awards.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 awards damages of £1,050.00. | Upheld | — | £1,050 |
| Redundancy | The judgment states the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment of £5,512.50. | Upheld | — | £5,513 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states the respondent failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and orders payment of £315.00. | Upheld | — | £315 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,878
- 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.