Case 3311497/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Garde Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3311497/2020
- Decision date
- 30 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge French Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment because the respondent had not entered a response in time. The claimant attended in person and the case was heard by Employment Judge French at Watford on 30 March 2022.
The tribunal upheld the claimant’s holiday pay claim under the Working Time Regulations 1998 and awarded £1,384.50. It also upheld the claimant’s breach of contract claim for notice pay and awarded £461.50. In addition, the tribunal found that the claimant should have been paid a total final payment of £2,332.30, made up of holiday pay, notice pay, and two weeks’ furlough pay of £486.30 for 1 to 15 July 2020 before notice was given on 16 July 2020.
The tribunal further recorded that the respondent had failed to provide the claimant with written particulars of employment and made an award of two weeks’ pay under s38 of the Employment Act 2002, quantified at £1,000.00. The respondent had already paid £1,235.47, which was offset against the sums due. The resulting award ordered against the respondent was £2,096.83 gross, subject to any national insurance and tax due.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | Holiday pay claim under the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £1,385 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim. | Upheld | — | £462 |
| Other | Statutory award of two weeks' pay under s38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written particulars of employment; not a freestanding claim type in the taxonomy. | Upheld | — | £1,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,097
- 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.