Case 2403928/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Foster v MDH Services Group Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2403928/2022
- Decision date
- 15 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Foster
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. On that basis, the Employment Judge determined the claim without a hearing and found that Mr A Foster had been unfairly dismissed by MDH Services Group Limited. The judgment records that the remedy for the unfair dismissal claim would be determined at a later hearing.
The tribunal also held that Mr Foster was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It awarded gross damages of £3,105, calculated in the judgment as £915 for four weeks less £555 for three weeks at £185, producing £3,105.
In addition, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay Mr Foster's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £549. The accompanying notice on interest explains the relevant decision day as 15 December 2022 and the stipulated interest rate as 8% per annum, but the judgment text itself does not set out any separate interest award. This extraction treats the awarded sums of £3,105 and £549 as the monetary relief determined in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed under rule 21. Remedy was left to be determined at a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered gross damages of £3,105. | Upheld | — | £3,105 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £549. | Upheld | — | £549 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,654
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.