Case 3306707/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Fisk v Emtac Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3306707/2024
- Decision date
- 10 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Representation
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Fisk
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D Fisk’s claims against Emtac Limited were heard at Norwich by CVP on 30 July 2025 before Employment Judge M Warren. The respondent did not attend. The tribunal gave oral judgment and later issued the written record on 10 September 2025.
The tribunal found the complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay to be well-founded. It awarded the claimant £15,000 as damages for breach of contract and stated that the figure had been calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that the claimant would have to pay tax on it as Post Employment Notice Pay.
The tribunal also found the complaint in respect of holiday pay to be well-founded. It held that the respondent was in breach of contract in failing to pay the claimant for holidays accrued but not taken on the date employment ended, and awarded £115.39 as damages for breach of contract. The tribunal recorded that the claimant was responsible for paying any tax or National Insurance.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay complaint found well-founded. The tribunal awarded £15,000 damages for breach of contract, calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that the claimant would have to pay tax on it as Post Employment Notice Pay. | Upheld | — | £15,000 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay complaint found well-founded. The tribunal held the respondent was in breach of contract for failing to pay for holidays accrued but not taken when employment ended, and awarded £115.39 damages; the claimant was responsible for any tax or National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £115 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,115
- 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.