Case 2214115/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Abayomi v CL1 Realisations Limited (formerly Cazoo Limited) In administration — 2025
- Case reference
- 2214115/2023
- Decision date
- 16 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smart
Parties
3 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Smart heard this case in public at Birmingham (by video) on 7 August 2025. The claimant Mr K Abayomi appeared in person; neither respondent attended. The claimant was employed by the first respondent (CL1 Realisations Limited, formerly Cazoo Limited, in administration) for a brief period in June 2023. The Judge granted relief from sanction in respect of an earlier unless order regarding the holiday pay claim, and considered an application under Rule 22 (formerly Rule 21) which was not engaged because a response had been presented.
The Judge found that the first respondent terminated the contract first; the claimant's purported resignation after being told he was being dismissed had no effect. The contract permitted PILON at clause 16.1, and the claimant accepted under oath he had received the £960 gross PILON for two weeks' notice. Accordingly the breach of contract / notice pay claim failed. The holiday pay claim also failed because the claimant accepted he had been paid for the 1.5 days of accrued but untaken leave to which he was entitled.
The sick pay claim succeeded: the Judge awarded the claimant £192 gross, deducted unlawfully from his wages. The injury to feelings claim was rejected as no discrimination claims had been pleaded, and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to award interest on unlawful deductions of wages.
Claims and outcomes
3 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld | — | £192 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 referencesRemedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £192
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.