Case 1401073/2024 · Employment Tribunal
M Newman v G&A investments — 2025
- Case reference
- 1401073/2024
- Decision date
- 31 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
M Newman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Bristol Employment Tribunal on 21 February 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and Employment Judge Dawson determined under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure that a determination could properly be made on the papers.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and was awarded damages of £208.40. The tribunal further found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £1,563.00. The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, and awarded £177.14 in respect of that.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £1,948.54 in total. The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Dawson on 14 March 2025 and sent to the parties on 31 March 2025.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of £208.40 awarded. | Upheld | — | £208 |
| Redundancy | Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,563.00. | Upheld | — | £1,563 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement; £177.14 awarded. Listed by gov.uk under Working Time Regulations. | Upheld | — | £177 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,949
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.