Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that although the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed he is not entitled to any compensation for the reasons set out in the conclusion section of this decision.� The claimant�s claims relating to notice pay and holiday pay are dismissed.� It is recorded that the respondent agreed to pay the claimant the sum of �12.41 in respect of its failure to provide wage slips, together with a cheque for a further sum of �800.
The respondent was represented by Mr T Sheridan, of Peninsula Business Services Ltd.
2.�������� The claimant claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed by the respondent.� He also claimed that he was owed amounts in relation to notice pay, holiday pay and in respect of the respondent�s failure to provide itemised pay statements.
����������� (1)������ Was the claimant�s contract of employment with the respondent tainted with illegality?
����������� (3)������ Is the claimant entitled to a sum in relation to notice pay?
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.