Case 3327927/2017 · Employment Tribunal

Mr M Blitz, Counsel For the v Sheffield & Ford (Builders) Ltd and 1 other — 2019

Case reference: 3327927/2017
Decision date: 9 August 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Tynan Appearances
Venue: Cambridge

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mr M Blitz, Counsel For the

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal found that the claimant's complaint under Section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded: he was unfairly dismissed by the first respondent on 26 May 2017. It also found that the first respondent dismissed him in breach of contract by failing to give twelve weeks' notice of termination as required by Section 86 of the Act.

The tribunal declared well founded the claimant's complaint that the respondent made an unlawful deduction from wages comprising 11 days' holiday pay, contrary to Sections 23 and 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also upheld the complaint that, when proceedings began, the first respondent was in breach of its duty under Section 1(1) of the Act and made an award equal to two weeks' pay, with the amount of a week's pay to be determined at the remedy stage.

The claims against the second respondent were dismissed because they were withdrawn by the claimant. Reasons had been given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment records that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within the stated time limit.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The complaint under Section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by the first respondent on 26 May 2017 was found well founded.	Upheld	—	—
Breach of contract	The first respondent was found to have dismissed the claimant in breach of contract by not giving twelve weeks' notice of termination as required by Section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.	Upheld	—	—
Holiday pay	The tribunal declared well founded the complaint under Section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that the respondent made a deduction from wages of 11 days' holiday pay contrary to Section 13 of the Act.	Upheld	—	—
Other	The complaint that the first respondent was in breach of its duty under Section 1(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 when proceedings began was well founded, with an award equal to two weeks' pay to be determined at remedy.	Upheld	—	—
Other	The claims against the second respondent were dismissed on the basis that they were withdrawn by the claimant.	Withdrawn	—	—

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.