Case 2407938/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Hernandez v Majestic Coffee Lounge — 2021
- Case reference
- 2407938/2021
- Decision date
- 29 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Hernandez
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 23 June 2021. The respondent did not present a valid response in time, and neither party attended the hearing on 24 November 2021. The Employment Judge decided that the claim could properly be determined under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that Mr I Hernandez had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It awarded damages equivalent to one week's pay in lieu of notice, assessed at £320.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement on termination. It awarded £320 for 36 hours of accrued but untaken holiday. The total sum payable by the respondent within 14 days was £640.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded one week's pay in lieu of notice. | Upheld | — | £320 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and awarded one week's pay for 36 hours of accrued but untaken holiday on termination. | Upheld | — | £320 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £640
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 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.