Case 2411798/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Peters v Peninsula Business Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2411798/2023
- Decision date
- 30 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Peters
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed. The judgment states that the claim under sections 95 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded and succeeded, and it identified the effective date of termination as 30 June 2023.
The tribunal also held that the claimant's claim for notice pay succeeded. The unlawful deduction from wages claim under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was rejected as not well-founded.
The judgment records that settlement of remedy had been agreed in principle between the parties, and the case was stayed until 3 October 2024 to allow finalisation of settlement. No written reasons or monetary remedy figures appear in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states the unfair dismissal claim under sections 95 and 98 ERA 1996 was well-founded and succeeded. No written reasons were provided in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the claimant's claim for notice pay was well-founded and succeeded. The extracted text does not further classify the notice pay claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states the section 13 ERA 1996 unlawful deduction from wages claim was not well-founded and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 95 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.