Case 3204929/2022 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr A Bendall (2) Mr T Venables (3) Mr E Clifton-Jewitt (4) Mr L Mackowski (5) Mr W Przybylski (6) Mr L Robertson v Smart 4.0 Engineering Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3204929/2022
- Decision date
- 9 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beckett
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr A Bendall (2) Mr T Venables (3) Mr E Clifton-Jewitt (4) Mr L Mackowski (5) Mr W Przybylski (6) Mr L Robertson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 9 February 2023 at East London Hearing Centre by CVP, Employment Judge Beckett sat alone and the respondent did not attend. The tribunal held that the claims for unfair dismissal and holiday pay were well-founded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment found this claim well-founded for all claimants. The awards were made as individual basic and compensatory awards; no separate apportionment was given between unfair dismissal and holiday pay. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment found holiday pay well-founded alongside unfair dismissal, but it did not state a separate holiday pay figure. Each claimant instead received one total award made up of a basic award and a compensatory award. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £112,963
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £45,956
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £66,957
- compensatory remedy recorded
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.