Case 6006232/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Bosco Bristol Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6006232/2025
- Decision date
- 8 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Volkmer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, F Barnard, presented his claim in the Bristol Employment Tribunal on 24 February 2025. The respondent, Bosco Bristol Limited, did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined that judgment could be entered under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal considered an extract from the claimant's employment contract. It found that paragraph 18 entitled him to four weeks' notice, and paragraph 19 limited any payment in lieu of notice to basic pay only. On that basis, the tribunal rejected any entitlement to a sum for tips as part of notice pay.
The tribunal calculated the claimant's weekly pay from payslips showing salary of £2,500 gross per month as £576.92. It held that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £2,307.368 gross, representing four weeks' basic pay.
The judgment states that the sum is to be paid within 14 days of the judgment being sent to the parties, and that the claimant is responsible for accounting for any tax payable.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal treated the claim as a breach of contract claim for notice pay. It accepted the contract extract showing four weeks' notice and that any payment in lieu of notice was limited to basic pay only. It found the claimant was not entitled to any sum for tips under paragraph 19. | Upheld | — | £2,307 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,307
- 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.