Case 1602382/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr M. Adams v Dragon Fire & Security Systems Ltd HELD BY: CVP — 2021

Case reference: 1602382/2020
Decision date: 22 March 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr M. Adams

Respondent

Dragon Fire & Security Systems Ltd HELD BY: CVP

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan heard the case on 19 March 2021. The tribunal found that Mr M. Adams was fairly dismissed by Dragon Fire & Security Systems Ltd on 21 August 2020 for a reason related to conduct, so the unfair dismissal claim failed and was dismissed.

The claimant also alleged breach of contract in relation to notice of termination. That wrongful dismissal claim failed and was dismissed. The claim that the respondent had failed to pay holiday pay due to the claimant was withdrawn, and the written judgment records it as dismissed.

The reasons were given orally at the hearing and the written record states that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days, and no such request was made.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found the claimant was fairly dismissed by the respondent on 21 August 2020 for a reason related to conduct.	Dismissed	—	—
Wrongful dismissal	The claim for breach of contract concerning notice of termination failed.	Dismissed	—	—
Holiday pay	The claim that holiday pay due had not been paid was withdrawn; the judgment also records it as dismissed.	Withdrawn	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.