Case 1800308/2025 · Employment Tribunal
T Davies v Certa Precision Engineering Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1800308/2025
- Decision date
- 31 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Singh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
T Davies
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Leeds Employment Tribunal on 09 January 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Singh said a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal (notice pay), failure to pay a statutory redundancy payment, failure to pay holiday pay, and failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions contrary to section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 were all well-founded and succeeded.
The judgment did not determine the amount of compensation or damages. It states that compensation for unfair dismissal, the section 1 ERA 1996 claim, wrongful dismissal, statutory redundancy payment, and holiday pay would be determined at a remedy hearing, and that the respondent would only be entitled to take part in that hearing to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge who hears it.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Claim described as wrongful dismissal (notice pay). | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | Claim described as failure to pay a statutory redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim described as failure to pay holiday pay. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions, contrary to section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | 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.