Case 3302517/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Allen v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3302517/2020
- Decision date
- 16 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JUDGMENT
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr G Allen
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent submitted a response indicating that it did not resist the claims. On the basis of the information before Employment Judge M Warren, the tribunal determined the case without a contested hearing and entered judgment on 16 June 2020.
The tribunal held that the claimant, Mr G Allen, was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £6,600. It also found that he was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £8,925.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £770. The judgment states that the sums payable in respect of notice pay and holiday pay were calculated gross and are taxable in the hands of the claimant.
The total payable under the judgment was £16,295, to be paid without deduction.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £6,600. | Upheld | — | £6,600 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £8,925. | Upheld | — | £8,925 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £770. | Upheld | — | £770 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,295
- across all upheld claims
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.