Case 2301918/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Leigh Matthews v The Oak Designs Company Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301918/2024
- Decision date
- 18 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Abbott Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Leigh Matthews
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 8 February 2024. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The listed hearing on 29 August 2024 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that Mr Leigh Matthews was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £8,181.00, said in the judgment to represent 13.5 weeks. It also found that he was dismissed in breach of contract as to notice, and ordered the respondent to pay £848.40 gross for 7 days unpaid notice.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £848.40 gross for 7 days unpaid holiday. The judgment does not record any other substantive findings or any additional remedy beyond those three sums.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £8,181.00, described as 13.5 weeks. | Upheld | — | £8,181 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the dismissal was in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered payment of £848.40 gross for 7 days unpaid notice. | Upheld | — | £848 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £848.40 gross for 7 days unpaid holiday. | Upheld | — | £848 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,878
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.