Case 2208214/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v No appearance or — 2023
- Case reference
- 2208214/2022
- Decision date
- 5 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Stout
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance and did not attend the hearing. The tribunal was satisfied that the respondent had proper notice of the hearing and that it was appropriate to give judgment under Rule 21.
The claimant had signed a contract to start work as Internal Communications Lead, but three working days before his start date he was told the role was being withdrawn because the company was subject to a worldwide asset freezing order. He was told he would be paid one week's pay as compensation, but did not accept that this was sufficient.
The tribunal found that the contract permitted termination during the probationary period on one week's notice and allowed the respondent to terminate by making a payment in lieu of notice under clause 13.3. The conversation before the start date triggered that clause and terminated the employment in accordance with the contract. The claimant was entitled to one week's salary, net of tax and National Insurance, but no further sums were recoverable.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal awarded the amount due under clause 13.3 of the contract, being one week's notice pay. It found no other sums were recoverable because there was no breach of contract from which further damages could flow, save for the failure to pay the one week's notice. | Upheld | — | £1,538 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,538
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21
- Breakspear v Colonial Financial Services (UK) Limited
- Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
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.