Case 6011976/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Boaler v Gardiner Colours Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6011976/2024
- Decision date
- 18 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Knowles Appearances
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Boaler
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a valid response on time and did not attend the hearing. The tribunal therefore proceeded under rule 22 and determined the claim on the material before it. The claimant appeared in person at Leeds on 18 March 2025 before Employment Judge T Knowles.
The claimant withdrew the redundancy payment and disability discrimination claims, and those claims were dismissed on withdrawal. The remaining claims succeeded. The tribunal found that the breach of contract claim for notice pay was well founded, that the claim for unlawful deduction from wages for SSP arrears was well founded, that the claim for payment in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998 was well founded, and that the unfair dismissal complaint was well founded.
The tribunal recorded that the respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015 and increased the awards for breach of contract, unlawful deductions from wages, holiday pay and unfair dismissal by 25% under s207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It awarded £2,388.00 for notice pay, £291.87 for SSP arrears, and £1,800.00 for holiday pay.
For unfair dismissal, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £1,440 and a compensatory award of £24,960, noting that the statutory cap of 52 weeks' pay had been applied. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 applied. The judgment records a total monetary award for unfair dismissal of £26,400, with a prescribed element of £16,567.44 for the period 12 July 2024 to 18 March 2025 and a balance of £8,392.56.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Claimant withdrew this claim; the judgment records it as dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claimant withdrew this claim; the judgment records it as dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim. The judgment records £1,911.00 net notice pay plus £477.75 under s207A, with the amount payable stated as £2,388.00. | Upheld | — | £2,388 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | SSP arrears. The judgment records £233.50 wages plus £58.37 under s207A. | Upheld | — | £292 |
| Holiday pay | Payment in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday pay on termination. The written record states £1,440 holiday pay plus £477.75 under s207A, although those figures do not mathematically match the £1,800.00 payable sum stated in the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,800 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair and awarded a basic award of £1,440 and a compensatory award of £24,960. The statutory cap of 52 weeks' pay was applied. The recoupment regulations were held to apply, with a prescribed element of £16,567.44 for 12 July 2024 to 18 March 2025 and a difference of £8,392.56. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £30,880
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,440
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £24,960
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 22 Employment Tribunal Rules
- s 207A Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996
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.