Case 2600045/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Abigail Bullock v Leedale Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2600045/2025
- Decision date
- 1 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Price Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Abigail Bullock
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the claimant's complaint of breach of contract for failure to pay notice pay was well-founded and succeeded. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant damages in the net sum of GBP 8,724.12.
The Tribunal found that the claimant's breach of contract complaint for unpaid pension contributions was not well-founded and dismissed it. It also found that the employer's breach of contract claim for breach of a non-compete clause was not well-founded and dismissed that claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract complaint for failure to pay notice pay was well-founded and succeeded. | Upheld | — | £8,724 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract complaint for unpaid pension contributions was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The employer's breach of contract claim for breach of a non-compete clause was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,724
- 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.