Case 6004252/2025 · Employment Tribunal
E Yardley v PLAYWAZE Ltd (in administration) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6004252/2025
- Decision date
- 7 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E Yardley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Watford Employment Tribunal on 7 February 2025. The respondent, which is in administration, failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst determined the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure on the materials available.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and ordered the respondent to pay damages of £1,683.06. The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, comprising two days taken but unpaid on 15 and 16 July 2024 and two days accrued but untaken at the time of termination, and ordered payment of £673.22.
The judgment records that credit must be given for payments made by the Redundancy Payments Service for holiday pay and notice pay. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £2,356.28 in total.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Damages for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. Credit must be given for payments made by the Redundancy Payments Service for notice pay. | Upheld | — | £1,683 |
| Holiday pay | Two days taken but unpaid (15 & 16 July 2024) plus two days accrued but untaken at termination. Credit must be given for payments made by the Redundancy Payments Service for holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £673 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,356
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.