Case 3304181/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For v Non-attendance — 2025
- Case reference
- 3304181/2024
- Decision date
- 14 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Douse
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Douse, sitting alone at Cambridge Tribunal on 4 August 2025 via CVP, heard the claim in the Respondent's absence. The Claimant appeared in person; the Respondent did not attend. The Tribunal found that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed by Zip Management (Sailmakers) Ltd.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant £2,589.06 gross in respect of notice pay, £2,589.06 gross as the basic award for unfair dismissal, £2,433.78 gross as the compensatory award for unfair dismissal, and £250 for loss of statutory rights. The judgment notes that the gross sums may be discharged by deducting and paying relevant tax and national insurance, with evidence provided, before paying the net amount to the Claimant.
Oral reasons were given at the hearing; written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days. The judgment was approved by Employment Judge K Douse on 13 November 2025 and sent to the parties on 14 November 2025.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award £2,589.06 plus compensatory award £2,433.78 plus £250 for loss of statutory rights, rounded to nearest GBP. | Upheld | — | £5,272 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay of £2,589.06 awarded (gross), rounded to nearest GBP. | Upheld | — | £2,589 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,862
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,589
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,434
- 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.