Case 3304801/2020 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Respondent — 2021

Case reference: 3304801/2020
Decision date: 2 November 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Tynan Members
Venue: Cambridge
Panel members: Ms Catherine Anderson, Ms Bethan Osborne

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal unanimously found that Mr John Ashman's complaint that he was dismissed in breach of contract was well founded. It ordered Wallis & Son Limited to pay £270 as damages for breach of contract.

The tribunal also declared that when the proceedings were begun the respondent was in breach of its duty to the claimant under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It considered it just and equitable in all the circumstances to make the higher award under section 38(4) of the Employment Act 2002, namely £1,080, equal to four weeks' pay.

The claimant's complaints that he was discriminated against on grounds of age and race were found not well founded and were dismissed. The judgment was given after hearings in Cambridge on 1 and 2 November 2021 before Employment Judge Tynan with lay members Ms Catherine Anderson and Ms Bethan Osborne.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Breach of contract	The tribunal found the complaint that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract was well founded and awarded £270 damages.	Upheld	—	£270
Age discrimination	The tribunal found the age discrimination complaint was not well founded and dismissed it.	Dismissed	Age	—
Race discrimination	The tribunal found the race discrimination complaint was not well founded and dismissed it.	Dismissed	Race	—
Other	The tribunal declared that when proceedings began the respondent was in breach of its duty under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and awarded the higher amount under section 38(4) of the Employment Act 2002, £1,080, equal to four weeks' pay.	Upheld	—	£1,080

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £1,350; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

3 references

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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.