Case 1601165/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Esaias v D J Construction (Wales) Limited (In Voluntary Liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1601165/2022
- Decision date
- 31 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Cawthray Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Esaias
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Cardiff by video on 26 May 2023 before Employment Judge G Cawthray. The claimant, Mr M Esaias, appeared in person. The respondent, D J Construction (Wales) Limited (in voluntary liquidation), did not attend.
The tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment and ordered the respondent to pay £6,344 gross. It also found that the respondent had breached the contract of employment by dismissing the claimant without the full notice period, and awarded £4,880 gross as damages for that breach.
In addition, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £976 additional compensation pursuant to section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 because the claimant had not been provided with a written statement of employment particulars. The total monetary award recorded in the judgment was £12,200 gross.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £6,344 |
| Breach of contract | Damages were awarded for breach of contract arising from dismissal without the full notice period. | Upheld | — | £4,880 |
| Other | Additional compensation awarded pursuant to section 38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. | Upheld | — | £976 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,200
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.