Case 2305464/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R Hunt v Vagtek Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2305464/2021
- Decision date
- 20 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs R Hunt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 10 November 2021. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Tsamados decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment records three successful claims. The claimant was found to have been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and damages of £1,341.92 were awarded. The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,341.92.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £536.80. The total sum ordered was £3,220.64, and the hearing listed for 01 July 2022 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £1,341.92. | Upheld | — | £1,342 |
| Redundancy | The judgment states the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,341.92. | Upheld | — | £1,342 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and must pay £536.80. | Upheld | — | £537 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,221
- 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.