Case 3305832/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Godfrey v Mr Wayne Bishop (t/a WB Auto Servicing) — 2021
- Case reference
- 3305832/2021
- Decision date
- 26 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Godfrey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment, made because the time limit for presenting a response had expired on 25 October 2021 and no response had been presented. Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto decided the claim on the available material and entered judgment for the claimant on the issues before the tribunal.
The tribunal found that Mr T Godfrey had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. On that claim, the respondent, Mr Wayne Bishop trading as WB Auto Servicing, was ordered to pay damages of £3,506.52.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. On that claim, the respondent was ordered to pay £1,154.64. The total amount awarded by the judgment was £4,661.16.
Claims and outcomes
2 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 £3,506.52. | Upheld | — | £3,507 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,154.64. | Upheld | — | £1,155 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,661
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.