Case 3300633/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v CL 1 Realisations Ltd (formerly Cazoo Ltd) (In Administration) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3300633/2024
- Decision date
- 4 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan For
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Tynan, sitting alone at Cambridge on 11 February 2025, heard the claim of Mr N Merrill against CL 1 Realisations Ltd (formerly Cazoo Limited) (In Administration). The Claimant appeared in person; the Respondent did not attend and was not represented. The Tribunal first amended the Respondent's name to reflect its administration status.
The Tribunal found that the Respondent had dismissed the Claimant in breach of contract by failing to give him four weeks' notice or pay in lieu, and recorded that the Claimant had not breached any express or implied term of his contract such as to entitle the Respondent to dismiss him without notice. The Tribunal further found that the Claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal contrary to section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded, and that the Respondent had failed to pay the Claimant's holiday entitlement.
The Respondent was ordered to pay £2,536.92 net as damages for breach of contract in respect of notice, a basic award of £2,893.50 and a compensatory award of £34,726.57 for unfair dismissal, and £1,581.75 gross in respect of unpaid holiday entitlement, producing a total award of £41,738.74. Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons were not to be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Tribunal found the Respondent dismissed the Claimant in breach of contract by not giving four weeks' notice or pay in lieu; damages awarded net. | Upheld | — | £2,537 |
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint of unfair dismissal contrary to s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996 (protected disclosure / whistleblowing automatic unfair dismissal) succeeded. Remedy combines basic award (£2,893.50) and compensatory award (£34,726.57). | Upheld | — | £37,620 |
| Whistleblowing | The unfair dismissal claim was brought under s.103A ERA 1996, which is the automatic unfair dismissal provision for protected disclosures. The judgment does not separately quantify a whistleblowing remedy; remedy is captured under the s.103A unfair dismissal claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found the Respondent failed to pay the Claimant's holiday entitlement; sum awarded gross. | Upheld | — | £1,582 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £41,739
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,894
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £34,727
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 103A 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.