Case 2601501/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Z Taylor v Orca Doors Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2601501/2022
- Decision date
- 6 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Victoria Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Z Taylor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was dealt with under rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore determined the claim on the papers. The hearing listed for 14 October 2022 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that Mr Z Taylor was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It awarded him damages of £2,754.43 on that claim.
The tribunal also found that he was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,237.63. In addition, it found that the respondent had failed to pay his holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £566.64.
The total sum ordered was £5,558.70. The judgment does not record any separate award for interest or any discrimination-related remedy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £2,754.43. | Upheld | — | £2,754 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,237.63. | Upheld | — | £2,238 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £566.64. | Upheld | — | £567 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,559
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21
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.