Case 1401080/2024 · Employment Tribunal
C Noble v G & A Investments Projects Ltd (Bobby Allan) — 2025
- Case reference
- 1401080/2024
- Decision date
- 16 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
C Noble
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Bristol Employment Tribunal on 13 March 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined that the claim could properly be decided under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and awarded damages of £3,501.12. The claimant was also found to have been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £9,190.33. The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £916.96.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £13,608.41 in total. The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Livesey on 6 May 2025 and sent to the parties on 16 May 2025.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages awarded. | Upheld | — | £3,501 |
| Redundancy | Claimant dismissed by reason of redundancy; statutory redundancy payment awarded. | Upheld | — | £9,190 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £917 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,608
- 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.