Case 2501946/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Thomas Sargent v DTMS Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2501946/2024
- Decision date
- 23 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Thomas Sargent
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, Thomas Sargent, was employed as an Amenities Operator by the Respondent, DTMS Group Limited, from 10 July 2023 to 19 August 2024. He was entitled to one week's notice of termination but his employment was terminated on 19 August 2024 without notice or payment in lieu. The Tribunal found that the failure to give notice was in breach of the Claimant's written contract of employment.
The Claimant presented an ET1 on 7 October 2024. No Response was returned by the deadline of 10 December 2024. The Tribunal notified the Respondent on 13 December 2024 that a judgment might be issued, and requested further information from the Claimant, which he provided.
Employment Judge Sweeney was satisfied that there was sufficient information to issue a judgment under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The Claimant's weekly gross pay after tax and national insurance was £366.60, and he did not obtain alternative employment or receive benefits during the notice period. Damages of £366.60 were awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Claim for wrongful dismissal (failure to give notice) was well founded and succeeded. Judgment issued under rule 21 of the ET Rules following the Respondent's failure to present a Response. | Upheld | — | £367 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £367
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 16 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.