Case 3308886/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Dawe v The Finest Reptiles and Exotics Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3308886/2022
- Decision date
- 4 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Dawe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 26 June 2022 and the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore made a determination under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment records that the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim was dismissed in accordance with the strike out warning letter dated 29 July 2022.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £480.80. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,863.10.
No separate unfair dismissal remedy was awarded because that claim was dismissed. The judgment does not record any other heads of loss or any interest award, and the total monetary liability recorded in the judgment is £2,343.90.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed in accordance with the strike out warning letter dated 29 July 2022. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed/respondent found liable for damages in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £481 |
| Holiday pay | The respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £1,863 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,344
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.