Case 1807632/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Peters v Smart Parking Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1807632/2023
- Decision date
- 9 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Peters
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented on 27 October 2023 and the respondent filed a valid response on time but indicated that it did not defend the claim. The Employment Judge therefore determined the matter under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 without a hearing. The hearing listed for 14 February 2024 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that Mr G Peters was summarily dismissed in breach of contract on 25 May 2023. It held that he was entitled to the notice period payment under section 88 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The respondent was ordered to pay £563.68, described as the amount equivalent to one week’s gross pay after credit for statutory sick pay of £109.40 already received. Payment was directed to be made on or before 22 February 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was summarily dismissed in breach of contract on 25 May 2023 and awarded one week’s gross pay, with credit for statutory sick pay received of £109.40, as the claimant’s notice entitlement under section 88 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £564 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £564
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- section 88 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.