Case 2304089/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Ruddock v Leon Gaume Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2304089/2018
- Decision date
- 18 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clarke
- Venue
- London South Tribunal
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Ruddock
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Clarke, sitting alone by CVP, found that Mr D Ruddock's complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded. The judgment records that he had 6 years of continuous employment, starting on or about 5 September 2012.
The tribunal did not fix the unfair dismissal remedy in this liability judgment. It directed that remedy would be decided at a further hearing on 25 March 2021, and the written judgment records that separate case management directions would follow.
The tribunal also made two additional monetary orders to be assessed later: an amount equivalent to 2 weeks' pay because written employment particulars had not been provided, and a further amount for loss of statutory rights. No final figures were set in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal was found well-founded. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had 6 years of continuous employment starting on or about 5 September 2012, and it listed remedy for a further hearing on 25 March 2021. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay an amount to be determined, equivalent to 2 weeks' pay, because the claimant had not been provided with written employment particulars, and a further amount to be determined for loss of statutory rights. | 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.