Case 1403396/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Darren Dunne v Marrows Limited (in Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) (“R1”) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403396/2023
- Decision date
- 13 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge H Lumby REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Darren Dunne
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Darren Dunne's claims were all found well-founded. The respondent, Marrows Limited (in voluntary liquidation), did not attend the hearing. The tribunal awarded £1,500 for breach of contract in relation to notice pay, calculating that figure using gross pay because it was treated as Post Employment Notice Pay.
The tribunal also found that holiday pay had not been paid for holidays accrued but not taken when employment ended, and awarded £1,010.77. It recorded that the claimant was responsible for any tax or National Insurance on that sum. Under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal determined that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £692.30. The total monetary award was £3,203.07.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim found well-founded; the tribunal awarded £1,500 as damages, calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood of tax being payable on it as Post Employment Notice Pay. | Upheld | — | £1,500 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the holiday pay complaint well-founded because the respondent failed to pay for holidays accrued but not taken when employment ended. | Upheld | — | £1,011 |
| Redundancy | Under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal determined that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £692.30. | Upheld | — | £692 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,203
- across all upheld claims
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.