Case 3332100/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Stephen Duorado v Port Centric Services Limited (in Administration) and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 3332100/2018
- Decision date
- 13 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Representation
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Stephen Duorado
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondents did not attend the hearing. The Tribunal made a protective award for all employees dismissed as redundant on or after 5 June 2018, ordering the employer to pay remuneration for a protected period beginning on 5 June 2018 and lasting 90 days.
The claimant had received payments from the Secretary of State. His claims of unfair dismissal, breach of contract, wages, holiday pay and redundancy payment were dismissed upon withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award made in respect of all employees dismissed as redundant on or after 5 June 2018, with remuneration for a protected period beginning on 5 June 2018 and lasting 90 days. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed upon withdrawal after the claimant received payments from the Secretary of State. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed upon withdrawal after the claimant received payments from the Secretary of State. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to a claim for wages, dismissed upon withdrawal after the claimant received payments from the Secretary of State. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed upon withdrawal after the claimant received payments from the Secretary of State. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed upon withdrawal after the claimant received payments from the Secretary of State. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.