Case 3327930/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Blitz, Counsel For the v Sheffield & Ford (Builders) Ltd and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 3327930/2017
- Decision date
- 9 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M Blitz, Counsel For the
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the claimant's complaint under Section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded: she was unfairly dismissed by the first respondent on 26 May 2017.
It also found that the first respondent dismissed the claimant in breach of contract by failing to give two weeks' notice, and that the respondent made a deduction from wages by withholding 56 hours' holiday pay contrary to Section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Tribunal further found that the first respondent was in breach of its duty under Section 1(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 when proceedings began, and awarded an amount equal to two weeks' pay, with the weekly pay figure to be determined at remedy. Claims against the second respondent were dismissed on the basis that they were withdrawn by the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | 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 dismissed the claimant in breach of contract by not giving two weeks' notice as required by Section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The Tribunal found well founded the complaint under Section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that the respondent deducted 56 hours' holiday pay in contravention of Section 13. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The Tribunal found well founded the complaint that, when proceedings began, the first respondent was in breach of its duty under Section 1(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. An award equal to two weeks' pay was made, with the amount of a week's pay to be determined at remedy. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 86 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 1(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.