CFW Retail Ltd T/a Londis (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation)

Case Summary

Mr Norgrove claimed automatic unfair dismissal and detriments for asserting statutory rights, which were dismissed as not well-founded. The tribunal found the respondent had unlawfully refused to permit rest breaks between May and July 2024 in breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998, and unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code, warranting a 15% uplift on compensation.

The tribunal found the claims of automatic unfair dismissal and statutory rights detriments were not well-founded and dismissed them. However, the tribunal upheld the working time rest breaks claim as the respondent had unlawfully refused to permit the claimant his entitlement to uninterrupted rest breaks between May and July 2024, and applied a 15% uplift for the respondent's unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice.

• •automatic unfair dismissal under s.104 Employment Rights Act 1996
• •detriments for asserting statutory right
• •denial of right to uninterrupted rest breaks under Regulation 12 Working Time Regulations 1998
• •failure to provide written statement of employment particulars
• •breach of ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures

1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr M Norgrove Respondent: CFW Retail Limited t/a Londis (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) Heard at: Manchester On: 8 April 2026 Before: Employment Judge McDonald REPRESENTATION: Claimant: Representing himself Respondent: Not in attendance JUDGMENT The judgment of the Tribunal is that: 1. The complaint of automatic unfair dismissal in breach of s.104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is not well-founded and is dismissed. 2. The complaint of being subjected to detriments for asserting a statutory right is not well-founded and is dismissed. 3. The complaint that between 5 May 2024 and 11 July 2024 the respondent refused to permit the claimant to exercise the right to uninterrupted rest breaks to which he was entitled under Regulation 12 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 is well-founded. 4. The respondent failed to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars when he began employment. However, the respondent had provided the claimant with that written statement when the proceedings were begun so no amount is payable under section 38 Employment Act 2002. 5. The respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures and it is just and equitable to increase the award payable to the claimant by 15% in accordance with s 207A Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. 2 6. The respondent shall pay the claimant £552. This is the compensation the Tribunal considers just and equitable in all the circumstances under regulation 30(4) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (£480) together with the 15% uplift (£72) for unreasonably failing to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. Approved by: Employment Judge McDonald 8 April 2026 Judgment sent to the parties on: 14 May 2026 For the Tribunal: ...............…