Case 3300384/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Mercurial Systems Ltd T/a Bondright Roofing — 2019
- Case reference
- 3300384/2019
- Decision date
- 7 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lang
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Reading hearing on 6 November 2019, before Employment Judge Lang sitting alone, the tribunal held that Miss C Purver's complaints of unfair dismissal, breach of contract, holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations, and failure to provide a Section 1 statement were well founded. The claim for a redundancy payment was dismissed as not well founded.
The complaint of unauthorised deductions was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested, so this decision records the operative outcomes but not the tribunal's detailed reasoning.
Issues of remedy were listed for a separate Remedy Hearing on 19 May 2020 at Reading Employment Tribunal, so the judgment does not record any final monetary award in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claim under the Working Time Regulations was found well founded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Failure to provide a Section 1 statement; the judgment records this as a complaint under the Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the redundancy payment claim was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unauthorised deductions was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.