Case 3300506/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Grant v DW Contractors (Oxford) Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3300506/2019
- Decision date
- 12 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Grant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the hearing and emailed shortly before the listed start time asking for the case to be rescheduled. The tribunal refused the postponement application, noting that notice of hearing had been sent in February 2019, that the tribunal had tried to contact the claimant by his preferred email address, and that he had not responded to earlier correspondence. The tribunal referred to Rule 47 and proceeded in the claimant's absence.
The claim form was for unpaid notice pay and holiday pay. The tribunal noted that the form contained obvious errors, including the naming of two employees rather than the respondent on the early conciliation material, and it also noted that the claim form contained no detailed information supporting the claim. The tribunal observed that the claim might have been rejected under Rule 12(1)(f), but the case proceeded to hearing.
Mr Prince, for the respondent, gave evidence that the claimant had been paid wages for all days worked before termination, had been paid notice pay, and had been paid holiday pay. The figures recorded were £1,661.52 for work up to 23 November 2018 and £692.30 for notice pay, with the claimant only entitled to one week's notice. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant had taken 2 days' holiday on 10 September 2018 and 2 October 2018 out of an accrued total of 6.5 days, and that payment had been made for 4.5 days of holiday.
On that evidence, and in the absence of any detailed material from the claimant, the tribunal found that the claimant was not entitled to any further sums from the respondent and dismissed the claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claim included notice pay; the tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that notice pay had been paid and that the claimant was not entitled to further sums. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that holiday pay had been paid, including payment for 4.5 days holiday against an accrued total of 6.5 days. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47
- Rule 12(1)(f) 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.