Case 6036694/2025 · Employment Tribunal
- IN PERSON FOR THE v Respondent — 2026
- Case reference
- 6036694/2025
- Decision date
- 2 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Date
Parties
1 namedClaimant
- IN PERSON FOR THE
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent's application for an extension of time to present its ET3 response and grounds of resistance was dismissed. The respondent did not attend the hearing, indicated when contacted that it did not intend to attend, and did not pursue the application.
In the absence of a response, the tribunal entered judgment for Mr P Eley under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on his claims of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal, the latter being a breach-of-contract claim concerning notice pay.
The tribunal awarded notice pay of £1,752.24, calculated as 12 weeks at a net weekly loss of £146.02 after mitigation. For unfair dismissal, it awarded a basic award of £10,067.26 and a compensatory award of £4,234.58, the latter calculated as 29 weeks at £146.02. The total award was £16,054.08.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Judgment was entered for the claimant under rule 22 in the absence of a response. The remedy comprises the basic and compensatory awards. | Upheld | — | £14,302 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claim concerned breach of contract in relation to notice pay. | Upheld | — | £1,752 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,054
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £10,067
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,235
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.