Case 2602087/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Hallam v Armstrong Logistics Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2602087/2022
- Decision date
- 9 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phillips
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Hallam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Phillips sat alone at Nottingham on 9 December 2022 and heard the claim brought by Mr C Hallam against Armstrong Logistics Limited. The written record states that the Respondent failed to pay the Claimant the correct period of notice pay.
The tribunal therefore upheld the claim relating to notice pay and ordered the Respondent to pay Mr Hallam the gross sum of £659.34. No separate breakdown of the award is given in the short judgment, and no other claims or remedies are identified in the extracted text.
The decision was given orally at the hearing, and the written record notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. On the face of the judgment, the only material finding is the underpayment of notice pay and the corresponding gross monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the Respondent failed to pay the Claimant the correct period of notice pay and orders payment of the gross sum of £659.34. | Upheld | — | £659 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £659
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.