Case 2601546/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Andrew Simpson v Mill Farm Agriculture Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2601546/2022
- Decision date
- 5 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N Wilson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Andrew Simpson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 5 December 2022, Employment Judge N Wilson sat alone in Nottingham. The respondent did not attend and had given no prior explanation, so the tribunal proceeded to determine the case under the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal found that Mr Andrew Simpson was unfairly dismissed.
The judgment also ordered payment of £626.90 for holiday entitlement, £1,791.16 as damages for breach of contract in respect of notice, £447.79 for arrears of pay, £18.20 for one week's pension contribution, and £895.58 under s.38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a statement of employment particulars. The judgment does not set out any separate monetary award for the unfair dismissal finding, so the recorded monetary total is £3,779.63.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £627 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay ordered as damages for dismissal in breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £1,791 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Arrears of pay ordered by the tribunal. | Upheld | — | £448 |
| Other | Payment ordered for one week's pension contribution; the judgment does not label the legal head, so this is classified as other. | Upheld | — | £18 |
| Other | Award under s.38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a statement of employment particulars. | Upheld | — | £896 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,780
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.38 of the Employment Act 2002
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.