Case 1400898/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Duchesne v 1) Castlelanecomputers Limited 2) Dorset Electronics Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1400898/2019
- Decision date
- 6 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pirani
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Duchesne
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found that Castlelanecomputers Limited unfairly dismissed Mr C Duchesne and ordered a basic award of £1,089.38 and a compensatory award of £7,305.66, described as 6 months' loss. The second respondent, Dorset Electronics Limited, was dismissed from the proceedings.
The tribunal also ordered payment of £1,405.50 for notice pay, £1,405.50 for holiday pay (25 days), £622.50 for failure to provide written particulars of the main terms and conditions of employment, and £622.50 for failure to provide written reasons for dismissal, each described as 2 weeks' pay. The hearing listed for 7 November 2019 was cancelled. The total award was £12,451.04.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award of £1,089.38 and compensatory award of £7,305.66 (6 months' loss). | Upheld | — | £8,395 |
| Breach of contract | Failure to pay notice pay. | Upheld | — | £1,406 |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay holiday pay (25 days). | Upheld | — | £1,406 |
| Other | Failure to provide written particulars of the main terms and conditions of employment (2 weeks' pay). | Upheld | — | £623 |
| Other | Failure to provide written reasons for dismissal (2 weeks' pay). | Upheld | — | £623 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,451
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,089
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £7,306
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.