Case 1403119/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Ghezzi v AKMK Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403119/2022
- Decision date
- 9 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Ghezzi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 28 September 2022. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge therefore determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The listed hearing for 21 July 2023 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that Mr F Ghezzi had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,210.75, calculated as 5 x £442.15 gross weekly pay. It also found that he had been dismissed without receiving due notice pay, assessed at £2,210.75, being 5 weeks x £442.15.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay accrued but unpaid holiday entitlement in the sum of £1,768.60, calculated as 20 days at £88.43 per day. The total amount ordered to be paid was £6,190.10.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment calculated as 5 x £442.15 gross weekly pay. | Upheld | — | £2,211 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment stated that the claimant was dismissed without receiving due notice pay, assessed at 5 weeks x £442.15. | Upheld | — | £2,211 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay accrued but unpaid holiday entitlement, calculated at 20 days x £88.43 per day. | Upheld | — | £1,769 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,190
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.