Case 2304485/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Menzies Aviation (UK) Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2304485/2019
- Decision date
- 21 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Andrews Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant complained that he was unfairly dismissed and did not receive holiday pay to which he was entitled. The respondent did not enter a response after the claim was served, and did not respond after the claim was re-served at its registered office with a revised response deadline and notice of the hearing.
The claimant had also written to the respondent's HR department referring to the Tribunal proceedings, the case number, the hearing notice, his complaints, and his remedy calculation. The tribunal recorded that no response or other communication was received from the respondent.
The tribunal entered judgment under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. It found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and had not received holiday pay, and ordered the respondent to pay £7,754.17, comprising unfair dismissal awards and holiday pay.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Judgment was entered under rule 21 because no response was entered. The unfair dismissal remedy comprises a basic award of £127.50 after deduction of a redundancy payment and a compensatory award of £6,440.67. | Upheld | — | £6,568 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the claimant did not receive the holiday pay to which he was entitled and awards 9 days net holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £1,186 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,754
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £128
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £6,441
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 - Rule 21
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.