Case 1600572/2023 · Employment Tribunal
David Davies-Day v G and M Engineering Services Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600572/2023
- Decision date
- 11 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Othen Representation
- Venue
- By CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
David Davies-Day
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Othen heard the case by CVP on 6 September 2023. The claimant, David Davies-Day, was represented by Mr Magennis. The respondent, G and M Engineering Services Limited, did not attend and no response had been entered.
The tribunal held that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was well-founded and succeeded. It ordered the respondent to pay £7,074.97 for that claim. The judgment does not break that sum down into basic award, compensatory award, or interest.
The tribunal also held that the claimant's breach of contract claim was well-founded and succeeded. It ordered payment of £967.61 for that claim, subject to deductions for tax and national insurance. The judgment does not set out any further reasoning or separate monetary breakdown beyond those awards.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claim well-founded and succeeded. The respondent did not attend and no response was entered. | Upheld | — | £7,075 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claim well-founded and succeeded. The award was stated to be subject to deductions for tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £968 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,043
- across all upheld claims
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.