Case 1600027/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jan Gwilliam v Carmarthen & Pembrokeshire Blinds Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1600027/2019
- Decision date
- 11 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Jan Gwilliam
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing the respondent’s decision to withdraw from the proceedings, Employment Judge R L Brace proceeded under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and said there was sufficient material before the tribunal to make a proper determination. On that basis, the tribunal upheld the claimant’s breach of contract claim in respect of notice and ordered the respondent to pay £1,600 in damages.
The tribunal also upheld the claim that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £6,400. The judgment records that the claimant is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions that may be due on the sums awarded for notice pay and unpaid holiday pay.
The unfair dismissal claim also succeeded, but the tribunal did not fix the compensation in this judgment. It said the remedy for unfair dismissal would need to be determined at a later Remedy Hearing, so no separate unfair dismissal award is quantified in the decision extracted here.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The award was for notice pay damages. | Upheld | — | £1,600 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment refers to unpaid holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £6,400 |
| Unfair dismissal | The claim succeeded, but remedy was left to be determined at a Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, 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.