Case 1601113/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Lock v Head in the Shed Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1601113/2022
- Decision date
- 20 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Lock
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Cardiff by video on 17 February 2023 before Employment Judge S Jenkins. The claimant, Mr I Lock, was represented by his mother, Mrs K Lock. The respondent, Head in the Shed Limited, did not appear and was not represented.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant’s claims for breach of contract relating to notice and for payment in respect of accrued but untaken holiday succeeded. It ordered the respondent to pay £1,055.46 gross for the breach of contract claim and £1,356.00 gross for the holiday pay claim.
The written record states that the reasons had been given orally at the hearing. It also records the total sum ordered as £2,411.46 gross.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claim was stated to relate to notice. The tribunal ordered payment of £1,055.46 gross in relation to this claim. | Upheld | — | £1,055 |
| Holiday pay | The claim was for payment in respect of accrued but untaken holiday. The tribunal ordered payment of £1,356.00 gross in relation to this claim. | Upheld | — | £1,356 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,411
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.