Case 1403658/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Rowe v Macemade Ltd trading as The Boat House Christchurch — 2022
- Case reference
- 1403658/2021
- Decision date
- 19 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Rowe
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting by video on 4 and 5 April 2022 before Employment Judge Gray, held that Mr C Rowe was unfairly dismissed because there was no formal process or investigation into the matter. It awarded a basic award of £1,005.44, calculated as £502.72 x 2.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had contributed to his dismissal by 100% and that the procedural defects made no practical difference to the decision to dismiss, so no compensatory award was made.
Mr Rowe's breach of contract claim for notice pay succeeded because the respondent had not proven beyond reasonable doubt that he had committed an act of gross misconduct at the time of dismissal. The tribunal held that he was entitled to 4 weeks' notice pay and increased that sum by 5% for failure to follow the ACAS code, resulting in a gross award of £2,111.42. The respondent was ordered to pay the awarded amounts.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed without fair process because there was no formal process or investigation. The tribunal made a basic award of £1,005.44 (£502.72 x 2), but found the claimant contributed to his dismissal by 100% and that the procedural defects made no practical difference, so no compensatory award was made. | Upheld | — | £1,005 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim succeeded because the respondent had not proven beyond reasonable doubt that the claimant had committed gross misconduct at the time of dismissal. The tribunal found he was entitled to 4 weeks' notice pay and added a 5% increase for failure to follow the ACAS code, producing a gross award of £2,111.42. | Upheld | — | £2,111 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,117
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,005
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- 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.