Case 2404392/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Andrew Dodd v J T Griffiths & Co Limited Heard: Manchester by CVP — 2025
- Case reference
- 2404392/2024
- Decision date
- 7 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Khan REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Andrew Dodd
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case by CVP on 22 January 2025 before Employment Judge A Khan. The respondent did not attend and the claimant appeared in person. The short judgment records the tribunal's findings and the monetary awards made on each head of claim, without setting out a detailed reasons section.
The tribunal found that Mr Andrew Dodd was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded him £2,423.25 gross. It also found that he was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £3,634.88.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay accrued but untaken annual leave entitlement on termination of employment and ordered payment of £3,640.26 gross. It also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of unpaid wages and awarded £2,584.62 gross. The total payable under the judgment was £12,283.01 gross.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states this was a dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £2,423 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy. | Upheld | — | £3,635 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states the respondent failed to pay accrued but untaken annual leave entitlement on termination. | Upheld | — | £3,640 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states this was a dismissal in breach of contract in respect of unpaid wages. | Upheld | — | £2,585 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,283
- 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.