Case 1601573/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. M. Pickering v International Judo Federation — 2021
- Case reference
- 1601573/2020
- Decision date
- 22 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. M. Pickering
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 liability judgment in which Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan determined the case on the papers. The tribunal found that Mr Pickering was unfairly dismissed by the International Judo Federation on 26 February 2020. It also found that holiday pay due to the claimant had not been paid, and that the respondent had breached the contract as to notice of termination.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to provide written employment particulars and had failed to provide itemised pay statements. No remedy figure was assessed in this judgment. Instead, the tribunal directed that the sum to be awarded would be assessed at a later remedy hearing before an Employment Judge sitting alone, by video unless objections were accepted.
The claimant was ordered within 21 days to present and serve a written calculation of the sums claimed by way of compensation and damages, together with a written statement supporting the calculation and remedy sought.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability judgment found the claimant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent on 26 February 2020. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay holiday pay due to the claimant. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent breached the claimant's contract with regard to notice of termination. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent failed to provide written employment particulars. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent failed to provide itemised pay statements. | 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.