Case 1404899/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Azam v Premier Renewables Energy Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1404899/2021
- Decision date
- 25 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Azam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Southampton Employment Tribunals on 29 December 2021. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £2,571.97 net. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement in respect of 2 days' leave accrued on termination, and awarded £512.82 gross.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £938.10 net. The total sum payable to the claimant was recorded as £4,022.89.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Awarded as damages for notice pay after the tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract. Determined under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £2,572 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded for 2 days' leave accrued on termination. Determined under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £513 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded for an unlawful deduction from wages. Determined under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £938 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,023
- across all upheld claims
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.