Case 1401077/2024 · Employment Tribunal
J Sherman v G & A Investment Projects Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1401077/2024
- Decision date
- 31 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
J Sherman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Bristol Employment Tribunal on 27 February 2024. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined that the claim, or part of it, could properly be decided under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure.
On the merits recorded in the judgment, the tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It awarded damages for that breach in the sum of £750.24.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,625.84. In addition, it found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £364.70.
The judgment states that the respondent must pay the claimant £3,740.78 in total. No discrimination, unfair dismissal, or other statutory claim outcome is recorded in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £750.24. | Upheld | — | £750 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,625.84. | Upheld | — | £2,626 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £364.70. | Upheld | — | £365 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,741
- 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.