Case 3333880/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A. Line, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 3333880/2018
- Decision date
- 19 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McNeill QC
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr A. Line, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningLiability had already been upheld, and the tribunal recorded that the parties had agreed the sums due to the claimant. The claimant’s unfair dismissal claim was found well-founded and upheld, but the tribunal made no award of compensation in respect of it, whether by way of a basic award or a compensatory award.
The claimant’s statutory redundancy payment claim was upheld, and the respondent was ordered to pay £8,903.84. The tribunal also upheld the claimant’s breach of contract claims.
For breach of contract, the tribunal ordered damages of £3,624.00 for notice pay and £16,818.52 for the enhanced redundancy payment to which the claimant was contractually entitled. The total sum payable by the respondent was recorded as £29,346.36. The written record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim upheld, but the tribunal made no award of compensation, basic award, or compensatory award. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment awarded in the agreed sum of £8,903.84. | Upheld | — | £8,904 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claims were upheld. Damages were agreed at £3,624.00 for notice pay and £16,818.52 for the enhanced redundancy payment contractually due. | Upheld | — | £20,443 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £29,346
- 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.