Case 3201199/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Croft v William Farrell — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201199/2023
- Decision date
- 22 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Croft
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Croft presented a claim in the East London Employment Tribunals on 3 July 2023. The respondent, William Farrell, failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge recorded that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment states that the claimant's claim for unpaid notice and accrued holiday pay succeeded. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £1,460. The judgment does not break that sum down between the two heads of claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records success on the claim for unpaid notice. The £1,460 award is not apportioned between this head and the holiday pay claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records success on the claim for accrued holiday pay. The £1,460 award is not apportioned between this head and the unpaid notice claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,460
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.