Case 3321685/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Hughes v Metplast Plastics Recycling Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 3321685/2019
- Decision date
- 26 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Hughes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in the employment tribunal brought by Mr D Hughes against Metplast Plastics Recycling Ltd. Employment Judge R Lewis recorded three monetary awards in the claimant's favour and ordered the respondent to pay a total of £7,511.89.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £2,501.76. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £4,844.95.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £165.18. The judgment contains no further reasoning beyond the outcome and sums awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages for notice. | Upheld | — | £2,502 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £4,845 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the outstanding sum. | Upheld | — | £165 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,512
- 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.