Case 1400381/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C. Kay (CAB) v Respondent — 2026
- Case reference
- 1400381/2025
- Decision date
- 20 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Appearances
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms C. Kay (CAB)
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Smail heard the case at Exeter by video. The claimant was dismissed summarily upon attempting to return to work from a period of sickness; the respondent (in liquidation) did not defend, with the liquidators having provided implied consent to the proceedings. The tribunal found the claimant's claims of breach of contract for failing to pay notice pay, accrued but unpaid holiday pay and unfair dismissal were well-founded. The disability discrimination claim was stayed and would be dismissed automatically after six months unless restored by the claimant (only if there is a prospect of recovery). With five years' complete service, gross weekly pay of £810 and aged over 41 throughout, the respondent was ordered to pay £4,050 notice pay (gross), £4,050 holiday pay for 25 days (gross), and an unfair dismissal basic award of £5,250 (5 x 1.5 x £700 statutory cap), totalling £13,350.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay £4,050 gross. | Upheld | — | £4,050 |
| Holiday pay | Accrued but unpaid holiday pay (25 days) £4,050 gross. | Upheld | — | £4,050 |
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award only: 5 years complete service x 1.5 weeks (over 41) x £700 statutory cap = £5,250. | Upheld | — | £5,250 |
| Disability discrimination | Disability discrimination claim stayed and will be dismissed automatically after 6 months unless restored by the claimant (if there is a prospect of recovery). | Other | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,350
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £5,250
- 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.