Case 2300191/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Tomms (Counsel) For the v Buzzlines Travel Limited (in voluntary liquidation) — 2019
- Case reference
- 2300191/2019
- Decision date
- 13 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams-Parish Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Tomms (Counsel) For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard evidence from the claimant only. The respondent did not attend and was described as being in voluntary liquidation. In the written judgment, Employment Judge Hyams-Parish recorded that the claimant's claims of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal were well founded and succeeded.
The judgment did not set out detailed written reasons because reasons had been given orally at the hearing. The record therefore does not include a narrative of the factual findings or the legal analysis beyond the statement that both claims succeeded.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £8,635.09 in total. That sum was made up of a basic award of £2,148.08, notice pay / wrongful dismissal of £1,432.05, and a compensatory award of £5,054.96. The claimant was made responsible for any tax and national insurance due on those sums.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal said the unfair dismissal claim was well founded and succeeded. The award included a basic award of £2,148.08 and a compensatory award of £5,054.96. | Upheld | — | £7,203 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal said the wrongful dismissal claim was well founded and succeeded. The judgment identified notice pay / wrongful dismissal at £1,432.05. | Upheld | — | £1,432 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,635
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,148
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £5,055
- 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.