Case 1804539/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Otto Coffee and Wine Bar Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1804539/2019
- Decision date
- 2 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Little REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Miss Dines was unfairly dismissed by Otto Coffee and Wine Bar Limited. It also found that she had contributed to that dismissal to the extent of 50%, and said that the compensation awarded for unfair dismissal would reflect that reduction. No monetary figure was assessed in this judgment for the unfair dismissal claim.
The tribunal further found that the claimant was wrongfully dismissed. It held that she was entitled to damages representing payment in lieu of notice, but the amount was left to be assessed later. The tribunal stated that no contribution would apply to that head of claim.
The judgment also records that the claim for holiday pay was reserved. The tribunal said it would consider that aspect after both parties had provided further information and documents in accordance with the order of the same date.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed, but also found she contributed to that dismissal to the extent of 50%, so any compensation for unfair dismissal was to be reduced accordingly. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was wrongfully dismissed and held that she was entitled to damages representing payment in lieu of notice, to be assessed later. The tribunal stated that no contribution would apply to that head of loss. | Upheld | — | — |
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.