Case 3334349/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Miss K Holbrook v Blades Services Ltd — 2026

Case reference: 3334349/2018
Decision date: 30 April 2026
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Chudleigh Date

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss K Holbrook

Respondent

Blades Services Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a Rule 21 default judgment, entered because the respondent did not present a response. Employment Judge Chudleigh recorded that the claimant, Miss K Holbrook, was unfairly dismissed and wrongfully dismissed by Blades Services Ltd.

The tribunal also found that the respondent failed to pay accrued holiday pay due to the claimant. In addition, it found that the respondent failed to provide an updated contract of employment pursuant to section 4 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment does not record any monetary award or split remedy figures in the extracted text.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Default judgment under Rule 21; the tribunal held the claimant was unfairly dismissed.	Upheld	—	—
Wrongful dismissal	Default judgment under Rule 21; the tribunal held the claimant was wrongfully dismissed.	Upheld	—	—
Holiday pay	Default judgment under Rule 21; the tribunal found the respondent failed to pay accrued holiday pay due to the claimant.	Upheld	—	—
Breach of contract	Default judgment under Rule 21; the tribunal found the respondent failed to provide an updated contract of employment pursuant to section 4 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.