Case 2300371/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M. Baker v Gillingham Football Club — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300371/2021
- Decision date
- 9 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R. Smith
- Venue
- London south via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M. Baker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M. Baker’s claims were heard by Employment Judge T.R. Smith on 3 February 2022. The respondent did not attend, although the tribunal said it had full regard to the matters set out in the ET3.
The tribunal held that the complaint that Gillingham Football Club Ltd had failed to pay a full statutory redundancy payment was well-founded. It ordered the respondent to pay £384.63 forthwith. The tribunal also held that the complaint of breach of contract, described as a failure to pay full contractual notice, was well-founded and ordered payment of £256.40 forthwith.
The complaint of non-payment of holiday pay was found not well-founded and was dismissed. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the complaint that the respondent failed to pay a full statutory redundancy payment was well-founded and ordered payment of £384.63 forthwith. | Upheld | — | £385 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the complaint of breach of contract, namely failure to pay full contractual notice, was well-founded and ordered payment of £256.40 forthwith. | Upheld | — | £256 |
| Holiday pay | The complaint of non-payment of holiday pay was found not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £641
- 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.