Case 1400168/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D B Dunne v Marrows Limited (in Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) (“R1”) and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 1400168/2024
- Decision date
- 20 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woodhead Appearances
- Venue
- by CVP from the Bristol Tribunal
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr D B Dunne
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D B Dunne brought complaints against Marrows Limited (in Creditors' Voluntary Liquidation) and Secretary of State, heard by CVP from the Bristol Tribunal on 20 December 2024 before Employment Judge Woodhead. The tribunal dismissed the complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay, finding it was not well-founded. It also dismissed the complaint in respect of holiday pay, again finding it was not well-founded.
The tribunal further determined under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996 that the claimant was not entitled to a redundancy payment. No monetary award was recorded in the judgment. The written record states that the reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Complaint in relation to notice pay was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Complaint in respect of holiday pay was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996, the claimant was determined not to be entitled to a redundancy payment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.163 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.