Case 1402808/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Tom Milby v AND Doughnut Addict Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1402808/2019
- Decision date
- 28 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Tom Milby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was determined in chambers at Plymouth on 28 October 2019 under Rule 21 because the time for presenting a response had expired and no valid response had been presented. The tribunal also amended the record to show the correct respondent name, Doughnut Addict Limited.
On the material before it, the tribunal held that the claimant's claim for breach of contract in respect of notice pay succeeded. It also held that the claim for unlawful deduction from wages succeeded, and that the claim for accrued but unpaid holiday pay succeeded.
The judgment did not determine the amount of any award. Instead, it stated that the appropriate remedy would be decided at a further hearing, with notice to be sent to the parties in due course.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim in respect of notice pay succeeded under Rule 21. Remedy was not determined in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unlawful deduction from wages succeeded under Rule 21. Remedy was not determined in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for accrued but unpaid holiday pay succeeded under Rule 21. Remedy was not determined in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21
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.