Case 1402741/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Greg Hancock v AND Doughnut Addict Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1402741/2019
- Decision date
- 28 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Greg Hancock
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal amended the respondent's name to Doughnut Addict Limited and, because no valid response had been presented, issued judgment under rule 21 on 28 October 2019. It found that the claimant's complaint for breach of contract in respect of notice pay succeeded, together with the complaints for unlawful deduction from wages and accrued but unpaid holiday pay.
The tribunal also recorded that the respondent had failed to issue the claimant with a written statement of the particulars of employment. It did not determine any monetary remedy in this judgment, stating instead that the appropriate remedy would be decided at a later hearing, notice of which would be sent in due course.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay succeeded. The judgment said the appropriate remedy would be determined at a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unlawful deduction from wages succeeded. Remedy was left to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for accrued but unpaid holiday pay succeeded. Remedy was left to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal recorded that the respondent failed to issue the claimant with a written statement of the particulars of employment. No monetary sum was determined in this judgment; remedy was to be decided at a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
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.