Case 3306506/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Poppe v Veivers Telecoms Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3306506/2022
- Decision date
- 16 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tobin Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Poppe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was determined under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Tobin therefore made a determination on the papers.
The tribunal found that Mr D Poppe had been dismissed without notice in breach of contract. It awarded him £700.00 in damages in lieu of one week's notice.
The tribunal also found that Veivers Telecoms Ltd had failed to provide a written statement of terms and conditions to the claimant as required by section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. Compensation of £2,800.00 was ordered in respect of that failure.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed without notice in breach of contract and awarded damages in lieu of 1 week's notice. | Upheld | — | £700 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent failed to provide a written statement of terms and conditions as required by section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 and ordered compensation of £2,800. | Upheld | — | £2,800 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,500
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 38 of the Employment Act 2002
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.