Case 2216654/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Bhavesh Dave v Perduco Ltd t/a Perduco Law — 2024
- Case reference
- 2216654/2023
- Decision date
- 11 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Goodman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Bhavesh Dave
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 default judgment by Employment Judge Goodman, sitting alone, after the Respondent failed to file a response to the claim by the date due. The judge determined that the claim could properly be decided on the papers without a hearing, on the basis of the claim form and other documents provided by the Claimant.
The Tribunal found that the Respondent had unlawfully failed to pay contractual notice of one month, amounting to £5,416.67 before tax, noting that the statutory notice entitlement was one week. The Tribunal also found that holiday pay of £1,040, representing 4.16 days accrued on termination at £250 per day, had not been paid.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant a total of £6,456.67, and to account to HMRC for any tax and National Insurance due on that sum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Unpaid contractual notice pay (one month) of £5,416.67 before tax; the judgment notes the statutory notice due is one week. | Upheld | — | £5,417 |
| Holiday pay | Accrued but unpaid holiday pay on termination: 4.16 days at £250 per day, totalling £1,040. | Upheld | — | £1,040 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,457
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.