Case 6011769/2025 · Employment Tribunal
JUSTIN SPENCER v Spor Group Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6011769/2025
- Decision date
- 30 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge David Gardner
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
JUSTIN SPENCER
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a breach of contract claim against SPOR Group Ltd, alleging he had been dismissed without three months' notice or pay in lieu. The case was heard at Watford by CVP on 30 January 2026 before Employment Judge David Gardner sitting alone.
The Tribunal found that the respondent was in breach of contract by dismissing the claimant without three months' notice or pay in lieu, and ordered damages of £15,615.38, calculated as three months' salary in lieu of notice (£17,499.99) plus one day's holiday pay (£269.23) less sums already paid (£2,153.84). The figures were agreed by the parties at the hearing, with liberty to apply for reconsideration within 14 days if the arithmetic was incorrect. The sum was ordered payable within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Tribunal found respondent in breach of contract for dismissing the claimant without 3 months' notice or pay in lieu. Damages of £15,615.38 calculated as 3 months' salary in lieu of notice (£17,499.99) plus 1 day holiday pay (£269.23) less sums already paid (£2,153.84). Quantum agreed at hearing. | Upheld | — | £15,615 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,615
- across all upheld claims
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.