Case 6004441/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Dominguez Fenoy v Barracuda Catering (Park Mews) Ltd T/A North Sea Fish Restaurant — 2025
- Case reference
- 6004441/2024
- Decision date
- 21 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Forde REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- London Central in person
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Dominguez Fenoy
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims of detriment for making protected disclosures, ordinary and automatic unfair dismissal, and unlawful deductions from wages relating to tips and holiday pay. The protected disclosures alleged related to the claimant's belief that one of the respondent's owners was involved in the sale of cannabis on the premises. All claims were unanimously dismissed by Employment Judge Forde.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found the respondent dismissed the claimant on grounds of capability and that this fell within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal found the respondent had attempted to consult with the claimant about his medical position but the claimant's refusal to engage prevented the respondent obtaining a medical or occupational health report. The respondent's belief in the claimant's incapability was found to be genuine and reasonable, and a fair procedure had been followed.
On the unlawful deductions claims, the tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence, supported by documentary and video evidence, that the claimant had received tips throughout his employment. On holiday pay, the tribunal accepted Ms Hester's evidence regarding the calculation of average hours and accrued leave, and found the claimant had been paid the holiday pay properly due to him.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Detriment for making protected disclosures: complaint found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal complaint found not well-founded and dismissed. Tribunal found dismissal on the basis of capability fell within the range of reasonable responses and a fair procedure was followed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal arising from protected disclosures: not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unlawful deductions from wages contrary to s.13 ERA 1996 in respect of holiday pay and tips: not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 43B(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.