Case 6032585/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Miller v Future Heat Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6032585/2025
- Decision date
- 3 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Singh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Miller
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented at the Newcastle Employment Tribunal on 3 September 2025. The respondent did not present a valid response in time, and Employment Judge Singh determined that the claim could properly be decided under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. The judgment also substituted Future Heat Ltd for the previously named 'Futureheat limited' as the correctly named respondent under rule 35, the judge being satisfied under rule 89 that the claim had come to the attention of the respondent company through service at its registered office.
On the substantive claims, the tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered the respondent to pay damages of £5,000. The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the gross sum of £4,250. The hearing listed for 15 June 2026 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of £5,000 awarded. Rule 21/22 determination following the respondent's failure to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £5,000 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement; gross sum of £4,250 ordered. | Upheld | — | £4,250 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,250
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
- rule 35
- rule 89
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.