Case 1400250/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Moore v The Black Dog Saloon Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400250/2022
- Decision date
- 20 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beever Appearances
- Venue
- by CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Moore
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Moore did not attend the CVP hearing on 14 October 2022. Employment Judge Beever was satisfied that the hearing should proceed in his absence under rule 47 after checking that notice had been sent to the correct address and that the clerk's telephone and email enquiries had received no response.
The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. The tribunal said that, on the claimant's own case, his employment ran from 15 April 2021 to 29 October 2021, so he did not have the two years' qualifying service required for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim.
The claimant's money claims were allowed to the extent accepted by the respondent: £400 for a week in hand, £400 for notice pay, £1,040 for accrued holiday pay, and £409.92 for expenses, totalling £2,249.92. The tribunal recorded these as claims for unlawful deduction from wages, breach of contract, and holiday pay.
The respondent's employer contract counterclaim was also considered. Mr Mages gave evidence which the tribunal accepted as reliable, and the tribunal allowed only part of the respondent's claimed loss, focusing on the claimant's obligation to take reasonable care of the respondent's property. The allowed items totalled £2,446.07, including losses for drinks equipment, replacement locks, a replacement laptop, cleaning the kitchen area, a damaged dishwasher, and removal of the claimant's property.
Balancing the claimant's successful money claims against the respondent's counterclaim, the tribunal ordered the claimant to pay the respondent the net sum of £196.15.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant's employment ran from 15 April 2021 to 29 October 2021, so he did not have the two years' service needed for ordinary unfair dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Payment of a week in hand; allowed to the extent accepted by the respondent. | Upheld | — | £400 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay and expenses; allowed to the extent of £400 notice pay and £409.92 expenses. | Upheld | — | £810 |
| Holiday pay | Accrued holiday pay; allowed to the extent accepted by the respondent. | Upheld | — | £1,040 |
| Breach of contract | Respondent's employer contract counterclaim; allowed in part for specified property-related losses, with the remainder rejected. | Upheld | — | £2,446 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £196
- across all upheld claims
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.