Case 1300407/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D S Boyd v Cab Automotive Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1300407/2021
- Decision date
- 14 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Connolly
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D S Boyd
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Connolly sat alone at Birmingham by CVP on 14 July 2021. The tribunal held that Cab Automotive Limited breached Mr D S Boyd's contract of employment by failing to pay the contractual notice pay due under the contract.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay Mr Boyd £1,375.62 net in damages for breach of contract. The judgment states that the sum is payable after deduction of any income tax and national insurance contributions for which the respondent is liable.
A separate claim number, 1300826/2021, was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant because it duplicated case number 1300407/2021. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons were requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the respondent breached the claimant's contract of employment by failing to pay the contractual notice pay due under the contract. It ordered damages of £1,375.62 net, after deduction of any income tax and national insurance contributions for which the respondent is liable. | Upheld | — | £1,376 |
| Other | Case number 1300826/2021 was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant because it was a duplicate of case number 1300407/2021. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,376
- 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.