Case 2302326/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr J Johnson v Anthony John Addison and 2 others — 2022

Case reference: 2302326/2022
Decision date: 22 September 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Wright Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

4 named

Claimant

Mr J Johnson

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claim was issued on 12 July 2022 against Anthony John Addison, Formis Project Management Ltd and Formis Construction Ltd. The respondents did not present a valid response on time, so the Employment Judge dealt with the matter under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.

On the papers, the tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It awarded damages of £595.61 net for that breach. The judgment also records that the claimant had a separate claim for expenses and compensation under section 24 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, but that claim did not succeed.

The total sum payable was £595.61, and the hearing listed for 6 February 2023 was cancelled.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Breach of contract	The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £595.61 net.	Upheld	—	£596
Other	The judgment records a separate claim for expenses and compensation under section 24 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which did not succeed.	Dismissed	—	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £596; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

2 references

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.