Case 3302886/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Basey (lay representative) For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 3302886/2018
- Decision date
- 26 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge King Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Basey (lay representative) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Cambridge Employment Tribunal hearing on 18 May 2021 before Employment Judge King, the parties agreed by consent that Scion Ltd would pay Mr Fazekas £380.82 net in respect of notice pay and £86.15 net in respect of unpaid holiday pay. The written record does not set out separate factual findings on those sums beyond the consent orders.
Mr Fazekas's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. The written record says that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested, so no fuller written reasoning appears in the record supplied.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | By consent, the respondent was ordered to pay £380.82 net in respect of notice pay. | Settled | — | £381 |
| Holiday pay | By consent, the respondent was ordered to pay £86.15 net in respect of unpaid holiday pay. | Settled | — | £86 |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Tribunal stated it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £467
- 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.