Case 2300648/2022 · Employment Tribunal

In Person For the v Mr Gill, owner (No response, participation limited to submissions on Remedy) — 2022

Case reference: 2300648/2022
Decision date: 4 July 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Balogun Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

In Person For the

Respondent

Mr Gill, owner (No response, participation limited to submissions on Remedy)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Employment Judge Balogun sat at London South on 4 July 2022. The claimant, Tracey Emma Lomas, appeared in person. The respondent, Building Services (Kent) Ltd, was represented by Mr Gill, the owner, whose participation was limited to submissions on remedy.

The judgment records that the unfair dismissal claim succeeded and awards the claimant £3,701.05 on that claim. The reasons section in the extracted judgment does not set out a further breakdown of that figure.

The holiday pay claim also succeeded. The tribunal awarded £1,356.30 in respect of 22 days' accrued holiday. It further recorded that the respondent failed to provide the claimant with a statement of particulars of employment and awarded 4 weeks' pay of £986.40 for that failure.

The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant a total of £6,043.75.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Recorded from the judgment.	Upheld	—	£3,701
Holiday pay	Awarded in respect of 22 days accrued holiday.	Upheld	—	£1,356
Other	The judgment says the respondent failed to provide a statement of particulars of employment and awards 4 weeks' pay.	Upheld	—	£986

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £6,044; across all upheld claims

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.