Case 6004739/2025 · Employment Tribunal
A Goulding v Wykeham Staff Services Limited (in creditors voluntary liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6004739/2025
- Decision date
- 11 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Victoria Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
A Goulding
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Midlands East Employment Tribunal on 12 February 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined that the claim could properly be decided under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and awarded damages of £7,572 (net). The tribunal further found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £12,600. The respondent had also failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, and was ordered to pay £6,232 in respect of that.
In total, the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £26,404.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 (net amount). | Upheld | — | £7,572 |
| Redundancy | Claimant dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £12,600 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £6,232 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £26,404
- 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.