Case 2601519/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Gilbert v Diamond Mowers Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2601519/2021
- Decision date
- 4 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Britton Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Gilbert
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs K Gilbert brought two consolidated claims against Diamond Mowers Ltd. The first was issued on 7 July 2021 and the second on 8 September 2021; both concerned notice pay and unpaid holiday, and the second claim quantified the amounts due. The respondent did not present a valid response on time or at all to either claim, and the Employment Judge decided the claims could be determined under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On the merits, the tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered the respondent to pay damages of £732.36 net. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £121.50. The total sum ordered was £853.86, and the hearing listed for 19 November 2021 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £732.36 net. | Upheld | — | £732 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered £121.50. | Upheld | — | £122 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £854
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 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.