Claimant v 1066 Capital Limited trading as Crystal Press
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal decided under rule 22 that Mr Bartlett's unfair dismissal claim was successful following the respondent's failure to attend or participate in proceedings. A default judgment was entered in favour of the claimant.
Mr Bartlett was found to be entitled to a redundancy payment, but no separate award was made as this was subsumed within the basic award for unfair dismissal.
Mr Bartlett's claim for notice pay succeeded under the default judgment, with the tribunal awarding £11,588.04 representing unpaid notice.
Mr Bartlett's claim for failure to provide written itemised pay slips as required by s8 Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded, with £1,400 awarded.
The tribunal decided under rule 22 that Mr Heath's unfair dismissal claim was successful following the respondent's failure to attend or participate in proceedings. A default judgment was entered in favour of the claimant.
Mr Heath was found to be entitled to a redundancy payment, but no separate award was made as this was subsumed within the basic award for unfair dismissal.
Mr Heath's claim for notice pay succeeded under the default judgment, with the tribunal awarding £6,497.64 representing unpaid notice.
Mr Heath's claim for failure to provide written itemised pay slips as required by s8 Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded, with £1,082.94 awarded.
Mr Heath's claim for unpaid annual leave succeeded under the default judgment, with the tribunal awarding £2,156.01 for accrued but unpaid holiday.
Facts
Two claimants, Mr Heath and Mr Bartlett, brought claims against their former employer 1066 Capital Limited trading as Crystal Press. The respondent failed to attend the remedy hearing on 13th August 2025. Employment Judge Alliott had previously decided on 15th May 2025 that the claims were successful under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. Both claimants were unfairly dismissed and brought associated claims for notice pay, failure to provide pay slips, and in Mr Heath's case, unpaid annual leave.
Decision
The tribunal entered default judgments in favour of both claimants following the respondent's non-attendance. Both claimants succeeded in all their claims including unfair dismissal, notice pay, and failures to provide itemised pay slips. The tribunal awarded Mr Bartlett £95,264.27 and Mr Heath £88,919.82, covering basic and compensatory awards, pension loss, loss of statutory rights, notice pay, and other statutory payments.
Practical note
Rule 22 default judgments can result in substantial awards where employers fail to engage with tribunal proceedings, particularly in unfair dismissal cases with multiple associated statutory claims.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3310690/2024
- Decision date
- 13 August 2025
- Hearing type
- rule 21
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- default
Respondent
- Sector
- media
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister