Case 2400792/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Zeeman v SHQ Holdings Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2400792/2022
- Decision date
- 30 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Zeeman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was determined under Rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Phil Allen decided that a determination could properly be made on the papers. No lay members are listed, so this was a judge-alone decision.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £9,314 gross. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's accrued annual leave entitlement of 10 days and ordered payment of £1,730.76 gross, calculated by multiplying 10 days by a daily wage of £173.076.
The judgment includes an interest notice under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990. It states that interest is payable on tribunal awards unless the sums are paid in full within 14 days of the written record being sent, that the relevant decision day was 30 November 2022, the calculation day was 1 December 2022, and the stipulated rate was 8% per annum. The judgment itself does not quantify any interest sum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissal was found to be in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £9,314 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that 10 days' accrued annual leave had not been paid, calculated at £173.076 per day. | Upheld | — | £1,731 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,045
- 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.
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.