Case 6020172/2025 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr L Stewart (Director) The — 2026
- Case reference
- 6020172/2025
- Decision date
- 16 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gilroy KC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at Midlands West by CVP before Employment Judge Gilroy KC, considered claims brought by Mr Darren Manning against Rural and Country Energy Limited. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr L Stewart, a director.
The Tribunal dismissed the claim for notice pay and the claim for holiday pay, finding neither to be well founded. A claim for breach of contract was found to be well founded in part, and the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £130.76 in respect of that claim. A further breach of contract claim concerning alleged non-payment of mileage expenses was dismissed as not well founded.
The written judgment is brief and does not set out detailed reasoning, legal tests, or findings of fact beyond the operative conclusions on each head of claim.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for holiday pay was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim well founded in part; Respondent ordered to pay £130.76. Judgment does not specify the precise contractual matter underlying the partial success. | Upheld | — | £131 |
| Breach of contract | Separate breach of contract claim concerning alleged non-payment of mileage expenses was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £131
- 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.