Case 3307543/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Boloz v This Land Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3307543/2020
- Decision date
- 7 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Boloz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a rule 21 judgment on the Respondent's employer's contract claim. The Claimant, as respondent to that claim, did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant was in breach of contract. It ordered the Claimant to pay the Respondent £1,573.74 as damages for breach of contract.
No discrimination, unfair dismissal, or other substantive employment claim was determined in this judgment. The decision is limited to the employer's contract claim and the damages award made on that basis.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | This was the Respondent's employer's contract claim. The Claimant did not present a valid response on time, so the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 21 and found the Claimant in breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £1,574 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,574
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.