Case 2411148/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Pickering v Go-Haul Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2411148/2021
- Decision date
- 16 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Pickering
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued a Rule 21 judgment because the respondent did not present a valid response within the prescribed time limit. On that basis, Employment Judge Holmes found that Go-Haul Limited had, in breach of contract, failed to pay the claimant's expenses in the sum of £798.28.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay damages of £798.28. It also recorded that the sum was payable without deductions for tax or national insurance because it was reimbursement of expenses and not remuneration. The attached interest notice explained the general interest regime under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 and noted that sums representing costs or expenses are excluded from that regime.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Rule 21 judgment: the respondent did not present a valid response within the prescribed time limit. The tribunal found a breach of contract in failing to pay the claimant's expenses of £798.28. | Upheld | — | £798 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £798
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.