Case 2407170/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Hunter v C H Latham, The Baker Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2407170/2023
- Decision date
- 29 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Hunter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 30 June 2023 and the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore made a determination under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the papers.
The tribunal adjudged that Mr M Hunter was unfairly dismissed. On that claim, the judgment records a basic award of £2,680.54.
The tribunal also found that the respondent dismissed the claimant in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £1,787.03. The judgment includes the standard interest notice, stating that interest would be payable if the sums remained unpaid after 14 days from the date the written record was sent to the parties, but it does not set out any separate interest amount.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Rule 21 judgment; the tribunal adjudged that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded a basic award of £2,680.54. | Upheld | — | £2,681 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed the claimant in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £1,787.03. | Upheld | — | £1,787 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,468
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,681
- statutory, unfair dismissal
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.