Case 3201349/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Dawn Thompson v Safeguard SVP Limited (In Administration) RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201349/2023
- Decision date
- 30 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Dawn Thompson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was recorded as a preliminary hearing heard in private by video-link at East London Hearing Centre on 30 October 2024 before Employment Judge R S Drake. The Claimant was represented by Ms Sarina Hayes, solicitor. The Respondent, Safeguard SVP Limited (In Administration), did not attend and had not filed an ET3 response.
The tribunal stated that the Claimant’s claims of unfair dismissal, breach of contract, unpaid holiday pay and failure to consult contrary to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 all succeeded because the Respondent had failed to file a Response. Judgment was therefore entered in accordance with Rule 21. The extracted text records no separate remedy assessment or monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Judgment entered under Rule 21 because the Respondent filed no ET3 and did not attend. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Judgment entered under Rule 21 because the Respondent filed no ET3 and did not attend. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment describes this as unpaid holiday pay; no separate monetary figure is stated in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The judgment describes this as failure to consult contrary to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006; judgment entered under Rule 21. | Upheld | — | — |
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.