Case 3204810/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Mr B Haggard v J Robertson & Co Ltd — 2022

Case reference: 3204810/2021
Decision date: 20 January 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge F Allen Representation

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr B Haggard

Respondent

J Robertson & Co Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Claim no. 3204810/2021 was withdrawn by the claimant. The tribunal recorded that it was dismissed, but the extracted judgment does not identify the underlying cause of action for that claim.

In claim no. 3204814/2021, the tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to redundancy pay. It ordered the respondent to pay £5,691.16 on that claim.

The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant in lieu of entitlement to annual leave and ordered £540.67. It further found a breach of contract in failing to pay notice pay and ordered £4,462.56. The total awarded was £10,694.39.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Claim no. 3204810/2021 was withdrawn by the claimant; the tribunal recorded that it was dismissed. The extracted judgment does not identify the underlying cause of action.	Withdrawn	—	—
Redundancy	The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded redundancy pay in this amount.	Upheld	—	£5,691
Holiday pay	The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant in lieu of entitlement to annual leave and ordered this sum.	Upheld	—	£541
Breach of contract	The tribunal found the respondent was in breach of contract in failing to pay notice pay and ordered this sum.	Upheld	—	£4,463

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £10,694; across all upheld claims

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.