Case 2601958/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Charles Coleman v Morgan Woods Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2601958/2024
- Decision date
- 15 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R CLark
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Charles Coleman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Midlands East Region of the Employment Tribunals on 11 November 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and the Employment Judge determined under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure that a determination could properly be made of the claim, or part of it.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,400. It further found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and ordered the respondent to pay damages of £2,400.30 net. The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £560.07 net.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £4,360.37 in total. Judgment was issued by Employment Judge R Clark on 15 January 2025.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Tribunal found claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,400. | Upheld | — | £1,400 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of £2,400.30 net awarded. | Upheld | — | £2,400 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay claimant's holiday entitlement; £560.07 net awarded. Listed under Working Time Regulations / unlawful deduction on gov.uk but the judgment frames it as unpaid holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £560 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,360
- 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.