Case 2600213/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Gunster v JW Lincolnshire Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2600213/2025
- Decision date
- 19 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Gunster
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Midlands East Employment Tribunal on 24 February 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Adkinson determined the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure without a hearing.
The Judge found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and that the dismissal was by reason of redundancy entitling him to a statutory redundancy payment. The Judge also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement.
The respondent was ordered to pay £2,976 in damages for breach of contract (notice), £3,746.82 as a redundancy payment, and £411.43 in respect of unpaid holiday entitlement. All future hearings were cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of £2976 awarded. | Upheld | — | £2,976 |
| Redundancy | Claimant dismissed by reason of redundancy; statutory redundancy payment of £3746.82 awarded. | Upheld | — | £3,747 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay claimant's holiday entitlement; £411.43 awarded. Layer 1 listed this under 'Working Time Regulations'; the judgment frames it as unpaid holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £411 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,134
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.