Case 3306447/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Simon Hazel v Asphaltic Services Limited (in voluntary liquidation) — 2019
- Case reference
- 3306447/2019
- Decision date
- 19 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Representation
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Simon Hazel
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not attend the hearing on 11 November 2019 at Bury St Edmunds. Employment Judge M Warren recorded that the claimant's claims succeeded and awarded holiday pay of £461.54 gross, wages of £1,153.84 gross, notice pay of £25,000 gross, and compensation for unfair dismissal of £14,570.76.
The judgment states that the claimant had already received the basic award for unfair dismissal in the form of a redundancy payment from the Insolvency Service, so the tribunal did not award a further basic award. The notice pay award was made with the statutory cap applied. The total payable by the respondent, without deduction, was £41,186.14, and the recoupment provisions did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Awarded as holiday pay gross, taxable in the hands of the claimant. | Upheld | — | £462 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded as wages gross, taxable in the hands of the claimant. | Upheld | — | £1,154 |
| Breach of contract | Awarded as notice pay gross; the judgment states that the statutory cap had been applied. | Upheld | — | £25,000 |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant had already received the basic award in the form of a redundancy payment from the Insolvency Service, so this figure is the unfair dismissal compensation awarded by the tribunal. | Upheld | — | £14,571 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £41,186
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £14,571
- 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.