Case 2407902/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Brown v Davinci Mobility Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2407902/2023
- Decision date
- 18 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Brown
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr P Brown was unfairly dismissed by Davinci Mobility Ltd on 16 May 2023, the effective date of termination. It found his unfair dismissal claim well-founded and adjourned the question of remedy to a hearing listed for 2 February 2024 by CVP.
The tribunal also found that the claimant suffered an unlawful deduction of wages for the period from 29 April 2023 to 16 May 2023. That claim was upheld on liability and also adjourned to remedy.
By contrast, the claimant's wrongful dismissal claim for notice pay was dismissed. The tribunal found that he was guilty of conduct so serious as to amount to a repudiatory breach of the contract of employment, which entitled the employer to summarily terminate the contract.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed on 16 May 2023 and adjourned the claim to a remedy hearing on 2 February 2024. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unlawful deduction from wages between 29 April 2023 and 16 May 2023 and adjourned the claim to remedy. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant guilty of conduct amounting to a repudiatory breach of the contract of employment, entitling the employer to summarily terminate the contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.