Case 1803154/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Shaw v Bailey’s Wholesale Fruit Distributors Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1803154/2022
- Decision date
- 26 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Shaw
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 26 July 2022 and the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore determined the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. On that basis, the tribunal found that the complaint of unfair dismissal succeeded and was upheld.
The tribunal also declared that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in relation to notice pay. The judgment is expressly limited to liability only, so no remedy figure was assessed in this decision and the claimant's entitlement was left to a later remedy hearing. The judgment also records that Bailey’s Wholesale Fruit Distributors Limited was substituted as respondent under Rule 34.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability only; remedy to be determined at a later hearing under Rule 21. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal declared the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in relation to notice pay. Liability only; remedy to be determined at a later hearing under Rule 21. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.