Case 6003533/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs. R Dilbar v Everest Barlow Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 6003533/2025
- Decision date
- 4 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs. R Dilbar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded one week's pay of £115. The tribunal also found the claims for accrued but untaken holiday pay (£480 for 42 hours) and for unlawful deduction from wages for the period 28 June to 4 November 2024 (£2,185) to be well founded.
The claims for redundancy pay and unfair dismissal were dismissed because the claimant had not been employed for two years and the Tribunal therefore did not have jurisdiction to hear them. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant a total of £2,780 within 14 days of the date of the Judgment, and the hearing listed for 20 and 21 January 2026 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; awarded 1 week's pay of £115. | Upheld | — | £115 |
| Holiday pay | Accrued but untaken holiday pay on termination (42 hours). | Upheld | — | £480 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unlawful deduction from wages for the period 28 June-4 November 2024. | Upheld | — | £2,185 |
| Redundancy | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction: claimant was not employed for 2 years. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction: claimant was not employed for 2 years. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,780
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.