Case 1304754/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr David Stones v Mr Lee Hill — 2022
- Case reference
- 1304754/2021
- Decision date
- 12 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dimbylow Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr David Stones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was entered in default under Rule 21 because the respondent did not present a response within the relevant time limit. Employment Judge Dimbylow therefore determined the claim on the papers and cancelled the hearing listed for 10 June 2022.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £3,416.67. It also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,632.00.
In addition, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £6,280.00. The judgment states that the sums payable are gross amounts and that the claimant is responsible for any income tax and National Insurance contributions on them.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Default judgment under Rule 21. The extracted text appears to contain an OCR error reading 'breach of correct'; this is taken to mean breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £3,417 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £1,632 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the sum stated. | Upheld | — | £6,280 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,329
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21, Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.