Case 2403714/2024 · Employment Tribunal
H Mills v David Landless, Julie Jago and Colin Prior, members of the Management Committee of St Aloysius Social Club — 2026
- Case reference
- 2403714/2024
- Decision date
- 10 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler Date
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondents did not present a valid response on time. Employment Judge M Butler determined under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure that the claim, or part of it, could properly be decided. The tribunal found that the respondents had failed to pay H Mills's holiday entitlement and awarded £309.24 gross. It also found that she had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £515.38, representing two weeks' statutory notice of £1,030.76 less £515.38 already paid.
The unfair dismissal complaint was well-founded, and the tribunal awarded a basic award of £1,030.76. The compensatory award for unfair dismissal and the remedy for the sex discrimination complaint were left for determination at a Remedy Hearing. The amount payable under this judgment was £1,855.38, in addition to any further compensation assessed at that hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £309 |
| Breach of contract | Damages for two weeks' statutory notice, less £515.38 already paid. | Upheld | — | £515 |
| Unfair dismissal | The sum awarded at this stage was the basic award; the compensatory award remained for determination at a Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | £1,031 |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment records that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled will be determined at a Remedy Hearing, but gives no separate findings or compensation figure. | Upheld | Sex | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,855
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,031
- statutory, unfair dismissal
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
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.