Case 3303101/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Inge Larsen v Doormatic Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3303101/2020
- Decision date
- 19 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Inge Larsen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Larsen was employed on 6 January 2020 and summarily dismissed on 20 January 2020. The tribunal rejected the respondent's case that, because he was dismissed first thing on 20 January, he was only entitled to be paid to 17 January. It found that he was salaried and was entitled to be paid up to the date of dismissal.
The tribunal also rejected the respondent's submission that the three-month trial period in the contract meant the claimant only had statutory notice rights during that period. On the wording of clause 11, the contract was clear that from the start of employment either party had to give 30 days' notice, so the claimant was entitled to be paid until 19 February 2020.
A separate contractual complaint about the disciplinary procedure failed. Clause 12 stated that the procedure 'should' be followed in 'normal cases', and the tribunal held that this did not give the claimant a contractual right to be dealt with under that procedure.
On quantum, the judge used the claimant's annual salary of £20,000, calculated 33 days' pay, and added accrued but untaken holiday of 3.37 days. After deducting £76.92 already paid, the tribunal awarded gross damages of £1,915.96.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the claimant was entitled under clause 11 of the written contract to 30 days' notice from the start of employment and rejected the respondent's argument that the three-month trial period limited him to statutory notice only. It also rejected the argument that he need not be paid on the dismissal date because he was dismissed first thing on 20 January 2020. | Upheld | — | £1,916 |
| Breach of contract | The claimant's separate argument that he had a contractual entitlement to be dealt with under the disciplinary procedure failed. The tribunal held that clause 12 was not contractual in the way argued, because it said the procedure 'should' be followed and referred to 'normal cases'. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,916
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,916
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.