Case 3303340/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Peter Chappell v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3303340/2022
- Decision date
- 28 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JUDGMENT
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Peter Chappell
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Peter Chappell, brought claims against Adaptable Consultancy Limited. The respondent did not present a valid response in time, and the Employment Judge decided the case on the information before the tribunal.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement. Both heads of claim were therefore upheld.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £901.38 without deduction. The judgment states that the figure was calculated net of tax and national insurance, and that the respondent was to account to HMRC for those sums.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the dismissal was in breach of contract in respect of notice. The judgment did not split the monetary award between the claims. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement. The judgment did not split the monetary award between the claims. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £901
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.