Case 2600453/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. P Corrigan v Meter Provida Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2600453/2024
- Decision date
- 5 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. P Corrigan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the liability hearing in Nottingham on 21 October 2024, before Employment Judge Heap sitting alone, the Claimant appeared in person and the Respondent did not attend or make representations. The tribunal held that the claim of unfair dismissal was well founded and succeeded. It also held that the breach of contract claim relating to unpaid notice pay was well founded and succeeded.
The tribunal further held that the claim for failure to provide a written statement of reasons for dismissal was well founded and succeeded. The second day of hearing time listed for 22 October 2024 was vacated. Remedy was not determined in this decision; the tribunal listed a separate remedy hearing for 7 January 2025 before Employment Judge Heap sitting alone.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim of unfair dismissal is well founded and succeeds. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claim of breach of contract with regard to unpaid notice pay is well founded and succeeds. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The judgment states that the claim for failure to provide a written statement of reasons for dismissal is well founded and succeeds. | Upheld | — | — |
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.