Case 3302966/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Hyatt v Eynsham Park Sawmill — 2026
- Case reference
- 3302966/2020
- Decision date
- 26 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Vowles Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Hyatt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondent, Eynsham Park Sawmill, did not enter a response. The tribunal therefore entered judgment in favour of the Claimant, Mr L Hyatt, under Rule 21 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
The judgment records two monetary awards. First, the Claimant was found entitled to a redundancy payment of £9,712.50. Second, the Claimant was awarded £8,774.64 for notice pay, recorded in the judgment as compensation.
The total award was £18,487.14, and the Respondent was ordered to pay that sum to the Claimant. No discrimination, unfair dismissal, or other substantive findings are set out in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal entered judgment under Rule 21 after the Respondent did not enter a response and held the Claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £9,713 |
| Breach of contract | The award was for notice pay, described in the judgment as compensation of £8,774.64. | Upheld | — | £8,775 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,487
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £8,775
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.