Case 3305896/2022 · 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
- 3305896/2022
- 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 no response had been presented by the respondent and that judgment had already been entered for the first, second, fourth and fifth claimants. For the third claimant, Mr M Lanigan, the tribunal held that his claim of unfair dismissal was well-founded and upheld, and that his claim for breach of contract in relation to notice pay was also well-founded and upheld.
The tribunal rejected Mr Lanigan’s redundancy payment claim, stating that it was not well-founded and failed. The judgment does not give full written reasons because reasons had been given orally at the hearing and no written reasons will be provided unless requested in accordance with the note on the face of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award £856.50; compensatory award £1,711.08 for loss of earnings plus £400 for loss of statutory rights. | Upheld | — | £2,968 |
| Breach of contract | Damages were awarded for notice pay. | Upheld | — | £1,141 |
| Redundancy | Claim was found not well-founded and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,108
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £857
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,111
- 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.