Case 3312334/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Kitching v Meads Construction Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3312334/2020
- Decision date
- 26 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Kitching
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a rule 21 judgment made because the respondent had not presented a response by the expiry of the time limit. On the available material, Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto determined that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £4,105.50.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,228. In addition, it found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £2,052.75.
The judgment records three monetary awards only, with a total of £9,386.25. No separate award breakdown beyond those three sums is given in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages awarded for notice pay. | Upheld | — | £4,106 |
| Redundancy | Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £3,228 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the sum stated. | Upheld | — | £2,053 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,386
- 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.