Case 3323651/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Reliance Tours (UK) Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3323651/2019
- Decision date
- 26 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Andrews Hearing
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was listed as a preliminary hearing but was treated as a final hearing under rule 48 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. It was held remotely by video. The respondent did not enter a response, and judgment was therefore entered for the claimant under rule 21.
The tribunal declared that Ms E W Gan was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £12,267. It also ordered the respondent to pay her forthwith damages for unpaid notice pay of £5,076.96, unpaid wages of £4,097.68, and unpaid holiday of £60.26. The total of those sums was £9,234.90.
The written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested by a party within 14 days. No separate merits reasoning is recorded in the written judgment beyond the default judgment and the monetary awards set out in the order.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment awarded after judgment was entered for the claimant under Rule 21 because the respondent did not enter a response. | Upheld | — | £12,267 |
| Breach of contract | Damages for unpaid notice pay (12 weeks gross) awarded after judgment was entered for the claimant under Rule 21. | Upheld | — | £5,077 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid wages (68 days gross) awarded after judgment was entered for the claimant under Rule 21. | Upheld | — | £4,098 |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid holiday pay (1 day gross) awarded after judgment was entered for the claimant under Rule 21. | Upheld | — | £60 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,235
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £9,235
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.