Case 6015000/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C M De Oliveira v Heirs of Sanpa Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6015000/2024
- Decision date
- 4 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCooey REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C M De Oliveira
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge McCooey, sitting alone at Reading by CVP on 3 and 4 March 2025, considered four complaints brought by Mr C M De Oliveira against Heirs of Sanpa Limited. Both parties appeared in person. The tribunal found that the complaints of unfair dismissal, breach of contract in respect of notice pay, and failure to provide written particulars of employment under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 were not well-founded and accordingly failed.
The complaint of failure to provide written reasons for dismissal contrary to section 92 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded, on the basis that no written reasons had been provided to the claimant by the respondent. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the equivalent of two weeks' pay, calculated as £398.08 x 2 = £796.16 net, derived from a 40-hour week at £12.44 per hour with a 20% tax rate applied.
Reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing; written reasons will only be provided if requested at the hearing or in writing within 14 days. The narrative basis for the dismissed claims is therefore not set out in this written record.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal found the complaint of unfair dismissal not well-founded; the claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim related to notice pay; found not well-founded and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Complaint of failure to provide written particulars of employment contrary to section 1 ERA 1996; not well-founded and failed. No dedicated enum value for s.1 ERA written particulars, so classified as 'other'. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Complaint of failure to provide written reasons for dismissal contrary to section 92 ERA 1996 succeeded; awarded two weeks' pay (£398.08 x 2 = £796.16 net), based on 40-hour week at £12.44/hour. No dedicated enum value for s.92 ERA written reasons claim, so classified as 'other'. | Upheld | — | £796 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £796
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 1 ERA 1996
- section 92 ERA 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.