Case 3307571/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Whitby v Brent Maritz t/a Security Solutions UK — 2024
- Case reference
- 3307571/2023
- Decision date
- 9 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge French Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Whitby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal determined the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. Employment Judge French found that the claimant, Mr A Whitby, had been dismissed by the respondent, Brent Maritz t/a Security Solutions UK, in breach of contract in respect of notice, and ordered the respondent to pay damages of £5,144.00.
The judge further found that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £6,751.50. The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, and ordered payment of £969.00 in respect of that claim.
The judgment was issued without reasons being recorded in detail under the Rule 21 procedure, and was sent to the parties on 9 October 2024. The gov.uk listing referenced unfair dismissal and working time regulations as categories, but the judgment text itself adjudicates only the breach of contract (notice), redundancy payment, and unpaid holiday claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Damages for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £5,144 |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment awarded (judgment states £6751.50). | Upheld | — | £6,752 |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid holiday entitlement awarded. | Upheld | — | £969 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,865
- 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.