Case 3200151/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Terry Smith v Prospector Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200151/2022
- Decision date
- 15 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Terry Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, in a Rule 21 judgment, found that Mr Terry Smith had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £3,207.60, calculated as 12 weeks' statutory notice at £267.30 gross per week. It also found that he was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £5,613.30, calculated by reference to 14 years' service over age 41 at 21 weeks' pay.
The tribunal further found that the Respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £534.60 for 10 days' holiday. The claim for unauthorised deduction from wages for the last week of October 2021 was dismissed because the claimant did not work that week and had already been compensated by way of damages for breach of contract in respect of notice.
The total award ordered to be paid to the claimant was £9,355.50. The hearing listed for 15 August 2022 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Damages for 12 weeks' statutory notice at £267.30 gross per week. | Upheld | — | £3,208 |
| Redundancy | Redundancy payment calculated on 14 years' service over age 41 at 21 weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £5,613 |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay holiday entitlement for 10 days. | Upheld | — | £535 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim in respect of the last week of October 2021 was dismissed because the claimant did not work that week and had been compensated by damages for notice. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,356
- 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.