Case 2305554/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Sophie Clarke v Doggy Base (Meopham) Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 2305554/2024
- Decision date
- 3 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Yardley Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Sophie Clarke
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard Sophie Clarke's case against Doggy Base (Meopham) Limited at London South by CVP on 1, 2 and 3 June 2026 before Employment Judge Yardley. The judgment states that the claim for unfair dismissal was not well founded and did not succeed.
The Tribunal upheld the complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay. It ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant the gross sum of £2,304.93 as damages for breach of contract, calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that the Claimant would have to pay tax on it as Post Employment Notice Pay. The written record states that summary reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim for unfair dismissal is not well founded and does not succeed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The upheld breach of contract complaint related to notice pay; the award was stated as a gross sum for damages for breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £2,305 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,305
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.