VadeLab
AllowedEmployment Tribunal·england-and-wales·

Claimant wins breach of contract case at Employment Tribunal

Case No. 3304355/2025 · Judge Shastri-Hurst

📌 In brief

In this case, an employee won their claim against their employer for wrongful dismissal due to lack of notice pay. The Employment Tribunal ruled in favour of the worker and ordered the employer to pay compensation.

⚖️ Legal holding

An employer must provide notice pay in accordance with employment law if a dismissal breaches the contract.

Topics

employmentdismissalbreach_of_contract

📖 Technical summary

The claimant was awarded damages for breach of contract regarding notice pay.

📜 Headnote Official document

The claim was presented in the Watford Employment Tribunal. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, leading to a determination that the employer breached the employment contract by dismissing without proper notice. The tribunal awarded damages equivalent to four weeks' net pay.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

Case Number: 3304355/2025

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Claimant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

1. The claim was presented in the Watford Employment Tribunal on 17 July 2025. The respondent has failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge has decided that a determination can properly be made of the claim, or part of it, in accordance with rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.

2. The claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and the respondent must pay damages to the claimant of £1,518.64 (4 weeks’ net pay) .

3. Credit must be given for any sums already paid by the [NAME] for notice pay.

Approved by:

Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst

4 March 2026

JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON

5 May 2026

FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • Employer made unauthorised wage deductions.
  • Employer failed to provide proper notice period as per contract.
  • Employer did not pay accrued but untaken holiday entitlements.
  • Employer breached contractual obligations regarding pension contributions.
  • Employer discriminated against or harassed an employee.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tribunal decided that the employer breached the employment contract by dismissing without proper notice, awarding damages.

Who was involved?

A claimant and their employer were involved in the case.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court ruled in favour of the claimant because the employer failed to provide adequate notice as required by employment law.

Which laws or rules were applied?

No specific laws or rules are mentioned in this judgment.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The central reasoning was that the dismissal without proper notice breached the contract between employer and employee.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the claimant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone dismissed without proper notice may be entitled to compensation from their former employer.

What evidence or documents mattered?

No specific evidence or documents are mentioned in the judgment.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions can often be appealed if there is a valid reason for doing so.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for legal cases.

Official source: Employment Tribunal — england-and-wales headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the Employment Tribunal and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.