Case 2413232/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Perdicchia v Puglia 51 Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2413232/2023
- Decision date
- 11 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Perdicchia
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment issued by Employment Judge M Butler on 30 May 2024 and sent to the parties on 11 June 2024. The tribunal found that the claimant, Mr D Perdicchia, was dismissed by the respondent, Puglia 51 Ltd, in breach of contract in respect of notice, and ordered the respondent to pay damages of £3,498.53 gross.
The tribunal further found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £3,858, calculated as 4 x 1.5 week's pay for every complete year of service (the claimant being aged 41 or older) multiplied by the £643 weekly pay cap. The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's accrued annual leave entitlement on termination and ordered payment of £874.63 gross.
The claimant was made responsible for any tax liabilities arising from the gross awards if tax was not deducted at source, and the hearing listed for 4 September 2024 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Damages for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £3,499 |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment calculated as 4 x 1.5 week's pay (claimant aged 41+) x £643 weekly cap. | Upheld | — | £3,858 |
| Holiday pay | Accrued annual leave entitlement unpaid on termination of employment. | Upheld | — | £875 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,231
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 - Rule 21
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.