Case 1401072/2024 · Employment Tribunal
G Munday v G & A Investment Projects Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1401072/2024
- Decision date
- 9 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Roper Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
G Munday
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Bristol Employment Tribunals on 17 February 2024. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Roper therefore made a determination under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On the material before the tribunal, the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy. The tribunal awarded a redundancy payment of £5,386.68 and £4,972.32 in lieu of notice.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,123.50. The total award recorded in the judgment was £11,482.50.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal recorded that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £5,387 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment awarded entitlement to pay in lieu of notice; the judgment text does not use a more specific claim label. | Upheld | — | £4,972 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £1,124 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,483
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the 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.