Case 1804916/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Lilley v Victoria Shoe Repairs Limted — 2021
- Case reference
- 1804916/2021
- Decision date
- 28 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Lilley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Leeds Employment Tribunals on 18 September 2021. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Maidment determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The hearing listed for 17 November 2021 was cancelled.
On the papers, the tribunal found that Mrs J Lilley had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and that she had been dismissed by reason of redundancy. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay her holiday entitlement. The tribunal ordered damages of £634.63 for notice, a redundancy payment of £5,711.63, and £2,487.73 gross for holiday entitlement.
The total award recorded in the judgment was £8,833.99. No separate award was recorded for interest or any other head of loss.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £634.63. | Upheld | — | £635 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £5,711.63. | Upheld | — | £5,712 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the gross sum of £2,487.73. | Upheld | — | £2,488 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,834
- 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.