Case 6020206/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Gillard v Dragon Football Academy Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6020206/2024
- Decision date
- 24 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Gillard
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge KM Ross made a determination under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (default judgment) following the respondent Dragon Football Academy Ltd's failure to present a valid response in time.
The Tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages of £3,166.67 (non-payment of September 2024 wages), unpaid accrued holiday entitlement of £438.45, and breach of contract damages of £805.20 covering business mileage (1,216 miles at 45p) and hotel expenses (£170 + £88).
No award was made in respect of pension contributions, those being matters for the Pensions trustees and/or the Pensions Regulator. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £4,410.32 in total. The hearing listed on 9 April 2025 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Non-payment of wages for September 2024 (gross). | Upheld | — | £3,167 |
| Holiday pay | Accrued but untaken holiday entitlement (gross). | Upheld | — | £438 |
| Breach of contract | Damages for non-reimbursement of business mileage (1,216 miles x 45p = £547.20) and accommodation (£170 + £88 = £258). | Upheld | — | £805 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,410
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 22 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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.