Case 3200719/2024 · Employment Tribunal
David Hill v Academy 1 Sports Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200719/2024
- Decision date
- 18 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howden-Evans
Parties
2 namedClaimant
David Hill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London East Employment Tribunals on 24 March 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's pension contributions, awarding £366.10 in damages for breach of contract. It also found the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, awarding £1,862.08, and that he had been dismissed by reason of redundancy, entitling him to a redundancy payment of £5,538.48. The tribunal further found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, awarding £1,269.29.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £9,035.95 in total. The hearing listed for 19 and 20 September 2024 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Unpaid pension contributions; damages of £366.10. | Upheld | — | £366 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of £1,862.08. | Upheld | — | £1,862 |
| Redundancy | Dismissed by reason of redundancy; statutory redundancy payment of £5,538.48. | Upheld | — | £5,538 |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid holiday entitlement of £1,269.29. | Upheld | — | £1,269 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,036
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the 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.