Case 3303227/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Hitchman v Envirotec Integrated Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3303227/2020
- Decision date
- 2 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Hitchman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the remedy hearing on 2 November 2022, Employment Judge Eeley found that the claimant, Mr M Hitchman, had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. The tribunal awarded damages of £534.36, describing this as the claimant’s net notice pay entitlement after tax and after taking account of sums earned in mitigation of loss, and stated that no further deductions should be made.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy. On that basis, it held that he was entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,447.99, payable in full without further deduction. The combined monetary award recorded in the judgment is £3,982.35.
The respondent, Envirotec Integrated Services Ltd, did not attend and was not represented at the hearing. The judgment is a Rule 21 remedy judgment and records the correct name of the respondent employer as Envirotec Integrated Services Ltd.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded net notice pay damages of £534.36, payable in full without further deduction. | Upheld | — | £534 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £3,447.99, payable in full without further deduction. | Upheld | — | £3,448 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,982
- 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.