Case 6023016/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. M Tuplin v Pipefab Engineering Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6023016/2025
- Decision date
- 24 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. M Tuplin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Midlands East Employment Tribunal on 20 June 2025. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Heap recorded that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. The hearing listed for 3 October 2025 was cancelled.
The tribunal held that Mr M Tuplin had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It ordered Pipefab Engineering Ltd to pay damages of £2,058.54 for that claim.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement. It ordered payment of £886.54 for that element. The judgment states that the respondent must pay £2,945.08 in total.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the dismissal was in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £2,058.54. | Upheld | — | £2,059 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £886.54. | Upheld | — | £887 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,945
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.