Case 2500917/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Thomas v 4 x 4 Accessories & Tyres Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2500917/2021
- Decision date
- 22 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Thomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss K Thomas was employed by 4 x 4 Accessories & Tyres Ltd from 31 March 2020 until 31 May 2021. She was dismissed with immediate effect on 31 May 2021, and her contract entitled her to 8 weeks' notice of termination. The tribunal found that the respondent failed to give the contractual notice or pay in lieu of notice.
The respondent did not present a response, so the case was determined under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the material available to the tribunal. The claimant had provided her claim form and a copy of her contract, and the tribunal was satisfied that the claim could properly be determined on that basis.
The tribunal held that the employment was terminated in breach of contract and that the claimant's figure was properly calculated on a net basis. It therefore entered judgment for damages of £5,136.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Complaint in respect of failure to give 8 weeks' notice succeeded. The tribunal recorded that damages for wrongful dismissal are awarded net of tax and fixed the award at the net amount claimed. | Upheld | — | £5,136 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,136
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the 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.