Case 3202943/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Carlos do Camo Nunes Aniza v P.J.Walsh Butchers Limited (In Liquidation) and 1 other — 2020

Case reference: 3202943/2019
Decision date: 7 February 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Ross Date

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Carlos do Camo Nunes Aniza

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal gave judgment under Rule 21. It declared the complaints of statutory redundancy payment, wrongful dismissal for notice pay, breach of contract in relation to failure to pay the national minimum wage, failure to provide written particulars of employment, and failure to provide itemised pay statements to be well-founded.

The complaint of unfair dismissal was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. The judgment did not determine compensation and stated that the remedy to which the Claimant was entitled would be determined at a Remedy Hearing.

Claims and outcomes

6 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Redundancy	The judgment declared the statutory redundancy payment complaint well-founded; remedy was left to a Remedy Hearing.	Upheld	—	—
Wrongful dismissal	The judgment described this as wrongful dismissal (notice pay) and declared it well-founded; remedy was left to a Remedy Hearing.	Upheld	—	—
Breach of contract	The judgment described this as breach of contract in relation to failure to pay the national minimum wage and declared it well-founded; remedy was left to a Remedy Hearing.	Upheld	—	—
Other	Failure to provide written particulars of employment, contrary to section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996, was declared well-founded; no more specific taxonomy category is available.	Upheld	—	—
Other	Failure to provide itemised pay statements, contrary to section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996, was declared well-founded; no more specific taxonomy category is available.	Upheld	—	—
Unfair dismissal	The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant.	Withdrawn	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.