Case 3312868/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Iliut v Meads Construction Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3312868/2020
- Decision date
- 26 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment made because the time limit for presenting a response had expired on 13 January 2021 and no response had been presented. Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto determined the case on the available material and gave judgment for the claimant on all matters decided.
The tribunal found that Mr V Iliut had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It awarded damages of £8,136 for that breach.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £6,187. In addition, it found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,778.
The total amount ordered by the judgment was £16,101. The judgment does not record any discrimination issues, any separate statutory uplift, or any interest award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £8,136. | Upheld | — | £8,136 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £6,187. | Upheld | — | £6,187 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,778. | Upheld | — | £1,778 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,101
- 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.