Case 3305894/2022 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr B Mills (2) Mr S Hulme (3) Mr M Lanigan (4) Mr B Kearney (5) Mr J Wade v Drainforce Rail Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3305894/2022
- Decision date
- 6 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst Upon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr B Mills (2) Mr S Hulme (3) Mr M Lanigan (4) Mr B Kearney (5) Mr J Wade
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe written judgment records that judgment had already been entered for the first claimant, Mr Mills, and that the later record was made after the tribunal received the second, fourth and fifth claimants' details. The respondent had not presented a response. In this judgment, the tribunal held that Messrs Hulme, Kearney and Wade were unfairly dismissed and that their breach of contract claims for notice pay were well-founded and upheld.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Messrs Hulme, Kearney and Wade's unfair dismissal claims were upheld. The written judgment records compensatory awards of £1,825.15 plus £400 loss of statutory rights for Mr Hulme, £4,426.88 plus £400 loss of statutory rights for Mr Kearney, and £672.36 plus £400 loss of statutory rights for Mr Wade; basic awards are recorded separately in the remedies field. | Upheld | — | £8,124 |
| Breach of contract | Messrs Hulme, Kearney and Wade's breach of contract claims for notice pay were upheld. The written judgment awards £1,711.08 to Mr Hulme, £1,106.72 to Mr Kearney, and £2,017.08 to Mr Wade. | Upheld | — | £4,835 |
| Redundancy | Messrs Hulme, Kearney and Wade's claims for a redundancy payment were not well-founded and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,669
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £5,710
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £8,124
- 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.