Cases2214115/2023

Claimant v CL1 Realisations Limited (formerly Cazoo Limited) In administration

16 October 2025Before Employment Judge G SmartMidlands Westremote video

Outcome

Partly successful£192

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalwithdrawn

Withdrawn by claimant on 7 February 2025. Claim had no reasonable prospects of success as claimant did not have two years' continuous service. Dismissal judgment properly made by Glennie EJ on 18 February 2025.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagessucceeded

Claimant was absent on sick leave amounting to £192 gross. On limited evidence, tribunal found claimant was owed sick pay and was not paid it. No reason for non-payment put forward by respondent. Unlawful deduction established.

Holiday Payfailed

Claimant entitled to 1.5 days accrued but untaken leave (12 hours at £12/hour = £144 gross). Evidence showed claimant was paid this amount. No breach of contract or unlawful deduction established.

Breach of Contractfailed

Claimant entitled to two weeks' notice during introductory period. Respondent exercised contractual right to pay in lieu of notice (£960 gross). Claimant accepted he was paid this amount. No breach of contract regarding notice pay established. Misrepresentation regarding working hours was affirmed by claimant when he agreed to work new hours.

Facts

Claimant worked for first respondent for 12 days (15-27 June 2023) in introductory period. His contract stated working hours of 09:30-18:30 but at interview he was told 09:00-18:00. First respondent dismissed him with immediate effect and paid two weeks' notice in lieu following probationary review meeting where inappropriate comments to customers and colleagues were raised. Claimant had 1.5 days sick leave and claimed he was not paid sick pay. He also claimed he was owed additional notice pay and holiday pay.

Decision

Tribunal found claimant was owed £192 gross sick pay which was not paid (unlawful deduction). Breach of contract claim for notice pay failed as claimant was correctly paid two weeks' PILON. Holiday pay claim failed as claimant was paid 1.5 days accrued leave. Misrepresentation regarding hours was affirmed when claimant agreed to work new hours. Unfair dismissal claim previously withdrawn. Overall, claimant awarded £192 gross.

Practical note

A litigant in person's partial compliance with an unless order before the deadline, even if incomplete, may justify relief from sanctions where the default is not deliberate or serious and a fair trial is still possible.

Award breakdown

Unpaid wages£192

Award equivalent: 0.4 weeks' gross pay

Legal authorities cited

Minnoch and others v Interserve FM Limited [2023] EAT 35Hovis Limited v Louton [2021] UKEAT/1023/20/LAGoldman Sachs Services limited v Montali [2002] UKEAT 1203/01/1910Sivanandan v Independent office for Police Conduct and another [2025] EAT 7Wakeman v Boys and Maughan Solicitors and another [2024] EAT 39Hadley v Baxendale [1854] EWHC Exch J70Johnson v Unisys Ltd [2001] UKHL 13Keates v Lord Cadogan (1851) 10 CB 591Briess v Woolley [1954] AC 333Peek v Gurney (1873) LR 6 HL 377Attwood v Small (1838) 6 CL&Fin 232Segor v Goodrich Actuation Systems Limited [2012] UKEAT/0145/11/DMKhan v Heywood and Middleton Primary Care Trust [2006] EWCA Civ 1087Northumberland County Council v Trebillcock UKEAT/0527/12/RNThind v Salveson Logistics Limited UKEAT/0487/09/DA

Statutes

Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994Working Time Regulations 1998 reg.14Employment Rights Act 1996 s.27Employment Rights Act 1996 s.14Employment Rights Act 1996 s.13

Case details

Case number
2214115/2023
Decision date
16 October 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Employment details

Salary band
£20,000–£25,000

Claimant representation

Represented
No