Case 2603038/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr William Chisholm v Mr Dennis Baskerville — 2022
- Case reference
- 2603038/2021
- Decision date
- 26 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wilson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr William Chisholm
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Nottingham on 26 August 2022, Employment Judge Wilson sitting alone heard Mr William Chisholm's claim against Grangewood Fencing Supplies Ltd. The tribunal held that the claimant's complaint of breach of contract was well founded and ordered the respondent to pay notice pay of £377.83.
The tribunal also made an award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars. That award was calculated as the equivalent of 2 weeks' pay and was set at £1,007.56.
The judgment records no additional findings beyond those awards. The total sum ordered to be paid was therefore £1,385.39.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant's complaint of breach of contract well founded and ordered payment of notice pay in the sum of £377.83. | Upheld | — | £378 |
| Other | Pursuant to s.38 of the Employment Act 2002, the tribunal made an award equivalent to 2 weeks' pay for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. | Upheld | — | £1,008 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,385
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.38 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.