Case 1604327/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J M Hutton v Wingfield Hotel Sports Bar Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1604327/2024
- Decision date
- 21 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J M Hutton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Wales Employment Tribunal on 21 November 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. A hearing previously listed for 18 February 2025 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and ordered the respondent to pay damages of £548.00 gross. The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £411.00, and that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, in respect of which £286.00 gross was awarded.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £1,245.00 in total. The claimant is responsible for any tax and national insurance contributions that may be due on these sums.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Damages for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; £548.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £548 |
| Redundancy | Claimant dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £411.00. | Upheld | — | £411 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement; £286.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £286 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,245
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.