Case 2305164/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Crouch v Flogo Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2305164/2023
- Decision date
- 9 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Wright Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Crouch
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr B Crouch, brought complaints of breach of contract against Flogo Group Limited relating to notice pay and a contractual redundancy payment. The respondent did not attend and was subject to Rule 21 restrictions. The tribunal recorded that the claim and notice of hearing had been validly served on the respondent at its then registered address before a later Companies House change of address.
The tribunal held that the complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay was well-founded. Taking into account interim payments already made, it awarded the claimant £2,403.68 as damages for breach of contract. The tribunal said the figure was calculated using gross pay because of the likelihood that the claimant would have to pay tax on it as Post Employment Notice Pay.
The tribunal also held that the complaint that the respondent was in breach of contract by failing to pay a contractual redundancy payment was well-founded. Taking into account interim payments already made, it awarded a further £2,403.68 as damages for breach of contract. The total sum due from the respondent to the claimant was £4,807.36.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Complaint in relation to notice pay. The tribunal found the complaint well-founded and awarded damages after taking interim payments into account. | Upheld | — | £2,404 |
| Breach of contract | Complaint that the respondent failed to pay a contractual redundancy payment. The tribunal found the complaint well-founded and awarded damages after taking interim payments into account. | Upheld | — | £2,404 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,807
- across all upheld claims
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.