Case 3301996/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Hitesh Dhorajiwala, Counsel on 9 September 2021. In person on 17 March 2023. For the v Foster & Son Northampton Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3301996/2020
- Decision date
- 17 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Hitesh Dhorajiwala, Counsel on 9 September 2021. In person on 17 March 2023. For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that Foster & Son Northampton Ltd dismissed Mr Matthew Allen in breach of contract because it failed to give him 3 months' notice terminating his employment or to pay him in lieu of notice. The sole remedy recorded was an order that the Respondent pay the Claimant the net sum of £13,175.01 as damages for breach of contract.
In its reasons, the Tribunal noted that the Respondent no longer sought to maintain that the Claimant had breached the express or implied terms of his contract so as to justify summary dismissal or dismissal otherwise than on notice. Although the Claimant did not bear the burden of proof on the point, the Tribunal stated that it was satisfied he had not committed misconduct or gross misconduct, had not materially failed to perform his duties satisfactorily, had not failed to comply with reasonable lawful directions, had not acted in a way that brought or was likely to bring the company into serious disrepute, and had not committed fraud or dishonesty.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding 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 failing to give 3 months' notice terminating employment or pay in lieu. | Upheld | — | £13,175 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,175
- across all upheld claims
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.