Case 2312570/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Donavan Langley v King Concrete Limited (in creditors voluntary liquidation) — 2026
- Case reference
- 2312570/2024
- Decision date
- 25 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Appearances
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Donavan Langley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Cox, sitting at London South by CVP on 23 March 2026, found the claimant's claims of constructive unfair dismissal to be well-founded and held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The respondent did not attend; a Mr Simon Sparkes attended at the start of the hearing on behalf of a separate entity (King Concrete Pumping Limited).
The tribunal dismissed the claims for holiday pay and for arrears of pay as not well-founded, and dismissed the claim for redundancy pay on the basis that it was not actively pursued. A basic award of £7,425 gross was ordered.
The tribunal further found that, when proceedings were begun, the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars or of changes to those particulars. Finding no exceptional circumstances that would make an award unjust or inequitable, the tribunal considered it just and equitable to award four weeks' gross pay and ordered the respondent to pay £1,800 under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Tribunal found the claimant's claims of constructive unfair dismissal well-founded; a basic award of £7,425 gross was made. No separate compensatory award is set out in the judgment text. | Upheld | — | £7,425 |
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded by the tribunal as 'The claimant was unfairly dismissed', arising from the constructive dismissal finding. No separate remedy attributed to this claim in the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for holiday pay found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for arrears of pay found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Claim for redundancy pay was not actively pursued and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Award under section 38 Employment Act 2002 for breach of the duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars; tribunal made an award equal to four weeks' gross pay (£1,800). | Upheld | — | £1,800 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,225
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £7,425
- statutory, unfair dismissal
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.