Mr R Benson v APM Nationwide Ltd: 3302092/2022
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 May 2023 |
| Date | 01 May 2023 |
| Published date | 18 May 2023 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Citation | 3302092/2022 |
| Subject Matter | Breach of Contract |
Case Number: 3302092/2022
1 of 20
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Respondent
Mr R Benson v APM Nationwide Ltd.
Heard at: Watford (via CVP) On: 27th October 2022 and 28th March 2023
Before: Employment Judge S. Evans
Appearances
For the Claimant: Ms. L. Whittington (Counsel)
For the Respondent: Mr. S. Ryan (Representative)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The Claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal is well-founded and succeeds.
2. The Respondent was in breach of contract by dismissing the claimant without the full
period of notice to which he was entitled. The complaint of wrongful dismissal is well-
founded and succeeds.
3. The Respondent failed to provide the Claimant with a written statement of the
particulars of employment.
4. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant a total of £10,896.94 made up as
follows:
Unfair Dismissal Basic award - £1096.14
Unfair Dismissal Compensatory award - £6949.76
ACAS uplift on compensatory award of 20% - £1389.52
Failure to provide s.1 statement - £1461.52
5. The Recoupment provisions do not apply.
Case Number: 3302092/2022
2 of 20
REASONS
Introduction
1. The Claimant’s date of birth is 4th May 1995. He was employed by the
Respondent as a maintenance technician from 1st October 2018 to 18th
November 2021. The date and fact of dismissal were agreed between the parties.
2. The Claimant referred his matter to ACAS Early Conciliation on 25th November
2021 and ACAS certificate R193246/21/87 was issued on 13th December 2021.
The Claimant’s ET1 was issued on 11th February 2022, bringing claims of
wrongful dismissal and unfair dismissal.
3. The Respondent filed an ET3, received on 4th April 2022. contesting the claims
made by the Claimant.
Procedure, documents and evidence heard
4. The Claimant’s claims were listed to be heard in full on 27th October 2022. In the
event, the time allowed was not sufficient to complete the hearing. By the end of
the sitting day the respondent’s evidence was concluded but there was no time
to hear evidence of the claimant’s case. The hearing was therefore adjourned
part-heard. For reasons set out in my Order of 16th January 2023, the hearing
was completed on 28th March 2023. Judgment on liability and, if relevant,
quantum, was reserved as there was insufficient time for me to review the
evidence and make my decision on the day.
5. A bundle of 65 pages was before the Tribunal, The parties were directed to refer
specifically to any pages to which the Tribunal should have regard in reaching its
decision. Page references below are to pages in the bundle. The Tribunal also
had witness statements from the Claimant and from Mr. David Hammett, Mr.
Matthew Ballard, Mr. Nathan McAlindon and Mr. Paul MacAllister for the
Respondent. Mr. McAlindon’s statement was not initially available due to an
administrative error by the Respondent. The Tribunal heard representations from
Ms. Whittington objecting to Mr. McAlindon giving evidence. After considering the
position of both parties and weighing the balance of prejudice, Mr. McAlindon
was permitted to give evidence.
6. Oral evidence was taken from the Respondent’s witnesses at the hearing on 27th
October 2022. The Claimant’s oral evidence was taken at the resumed hearing
on 28th March 2023. Oral submissions were made by both representatives at the
conclusion of the hearing.
7. There was a degree of conflict on the evidence. I heard the witnesses give their
evidence as identified above and reminded myself of the evidence taken on the
first hearing date before sitting on 28th March 2023. I find the facts below proven
on the balance of probabilities after considering the whole of the evidence, both
oral and documentary, and the submissions made on behalf of the respective
parties.
To continue reading
Request your trial