Case 3311705/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Lees v Charles Ross Auctioneers Ltd Trading As Holloways Auctioneers — 2020
- Case reference
- 3311705/2020
- Decision date
- 6 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Lees
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe response time having expired, and the respondent having stated that no part of the claim was contested, Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto determined the matter on the available material under Rule 21. The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £12,912, calculated as 24 weeks at £538 per week.
The tribunal also upheld the claimant's breach of contract claim for notice pay and ordered the respondent to pay £7,908, calculated as 12 weeks at £659 per week. In addition, it found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant in lieu of entitlement to annual leave and ordered payment of £3,828. The awards recorded in the judgment total £24,648.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment calculated as 24 weeks at £538. | Upheld | — | £12,912 |
| Breach of contract | The claim was for damages for breach of contract, specifically notice pay, and the tribunal ordered payment of 12 weeks at £659 per week. | Upheld | — | £7,908 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant in lieu of entitlement to annual leave. | Upheld | — | £3,828 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £24,648
- 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.