Case 1304598/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Mr. N. Holford — 2024
- Case reference
- 1304598/2023
- Decision date
- 9 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningJudgment was entered in default of the service of an ET3 by the respondent. The hearing took place at Birmingham via CVP on 9 August 2024 before Employment Judge Wedderspoon, with the claimant appearing in person and Mr N. Holford representing the respondent.
The tribunal awarded the claimant a total of £2,856, comprising a basic award of £1,428, holiday pay of £476 gross, and notice pay of £952 gross. The judgment sum was ordered to be payable to the claimant forthwith.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing; written reasons were not provided in this record. The brevity of the document limits further detail on the tribunal's reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Judgment entered in default of the service of an ET3. Basic award of £1,428 attributable to the unfair dismissal claim. | Upheld | — | £1,428 |
| Holiday pay | £476 gross awarded for holiday pay (Working Time Regulations). Judgment entered in default of the service of an ET3. | Upheld | — | £476 |
| Breach of contract | £952 gross awarded as notice pay (breach of contract). Judgment entered in default of the service of an ET3. | Upheld | — | £952 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,856
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,428
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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.