Case 6006364/2025 · Employment Tribunal
L Lowry v Mane ventures limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6006364/2025
- Decision date
- 25 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leith Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
L Lowry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the London South Employment Tribunal on 25 February 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure that the claim could properly be decided on the papers.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and ordered the respondent to pay damages of £518.00 gross (calculated at £18.50 per hour for 28 hours). The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, and ordered payment of £888.00 gross (calculated at £18.50 per hour for 6 days of 8 hours).
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £1,406.00 in total. The judgment notes that it is for the claimant to account to HMRC for any sums owed in respect of payments received under the judgment.
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, calculated at £18.50 per hour for 28 hours. | Upheld | — | £518 |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid holiday entitlement, calculated at £18.50 per hour for 6 days (8 hours per day). | Upheld | — | £888 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,406
- 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.