Case 6018401/2025 · Employment Tribunal
N Harris v Barry Tomlinson Trading as The Bike Shop — 2025
- Case reference
- 6018401/2025
- Decision date
- 16 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McTigue
Parties
2 namedClaimant
N Harris
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Midlands East Employment Tribunal on 16 May 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and the Employment Judge determined under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure that a decision could properly be made on the claim, or part of it, without a hearing.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered the respondent to pay damages of £4,476.50. It further found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £5,371.80, and that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, ordering payment of £596.50.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £10,444.80 in total, and the hearing listed on 9 October 2025 was cancelled. The judgment was approved by Employment Judge McTigue on 30 July 2025.
Claims and outcomes
5 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: £4,476.50. | Upheld | — | £4,477 |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment of £5,371.80. | Upheld | — | £5,372 |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid holiday entitlement of £596.50. | Upheld | — | £597 |
| Unfair dismissal | Listed on gov.uk as an unfair dismissal claim, but the rule 22 judgment does not expressly determine an unfair dismissal claim or award a separate sum for it. | Other | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Listed on gov.uk under Working Time Regulations; the judgment addresses unpaid holiday entitlement (recorded separately as holiday_pay) and does not expressly determine any further working-time claim. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,445
- 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.