Case 3306108/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Cleaver v Peterborough Bakery Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3306108/2024
- Decision date
- 25 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dobbie
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Cleaver
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Dobbie at Cambridge on 23 April 2025 heard the claim with the claimant represented by Ms M Bouffé (Counsel) and the respondent failing to attend.
The Tribunal upheld the constructive unfair dismissal claim and awarded a basic award of £13,500 and a compensatory award of £1,302.10, totalling £14,802.10. The recoupment provisions did not apply because the claimant did not claim benefits and started a new job just over a week after termination. Claims for unlawful deduction from wages (£913.17 net) and accrued untaken annual leave (£720 gross) were also upheld.
The notice pay claim was upheld in principle but no further damages were due. Reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal upheld; basic award £13,500 + compensatory award £1,302.10. Recoupment regulations do not apply. | Upheld | — | £14,802 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Net amount for work done in February and March 2024 (approx £1,212 gross). | Upheld | — | £913 |
| Holiday pay | Accrued untaken annual leave in final leave year (gross). | Upheld | — | £720 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim upheld but no further damages fell due. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,435
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £13,500
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,302
- 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.