Case 6015595/2025 · Employment Tribunal
G Dobrovolskyte v Palmers Patisserie Manufacturing Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6015595/2025
- Decision date
- 30 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
G Dobrovolskyte
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 22 default judgment determined on the papers after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Johnson held that the respondent was in breach of contract for notice pay, that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction by failing to pay accrued holiday pay on termination, and that when proceedings were begun the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars.
The tribunal awarded £269.28 (one week's gross pay) for notice, £1,507.97 for holiday pay, and £1,077.12 (four weeks' gross pay) under s.38 Employment Act 2002, holding that there were no exceptional circumstances making the default two-week award unjust or inequitable and that it was just and equitable to award four weeks. The total award is £2,854.37 and the previously listed hearing on 28 January 2026 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay: one week's gross pay as damages for breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £269 |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay accrued but untaken holiday on termination (28 statutory days for entitlement period 31/8/24-30/8/25). | Upheld | — | £1,508 |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars under s.38 Employment Act 2002. Award equal to four weeks' gross pay (uplifted from default two weeks). | Upheld | — | £1,077 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,854
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.