Case 2603140/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Barry Heery v Hallaton Manor Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2603140/2019
- Decision date
- 18 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
- Venue
- Leicester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Barry Heery
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAfter a five-day remote hearing in Leicester before Employment Judge Ahmed sitting alone, the tribunal held that Mr Barry Heery was constructively and unfairly dismissed by Hallaton Manor Ltd. The judgment records those liability findings in short form and does not set out detailed written reasons in the extracted text.
The tribunal also dismissed Mr Heery's application for a declaration and order under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, which concerned compensation for failure to provide written particulars of employment under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment states that remedy was agreed between the parties and that the Recoupment Regulations do not apply, but it does not give a monetary breakdown in the extracted record.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant was constructively and unfairly dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant was constructively and unfairly dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal dismissed the claimant's application for a declaration and order under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 concerning compensation for failure to provide written particulars of employment under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | 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.