Case 1800246/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Mr S Ali, Director — 2021
- Case reference
- 1800246/2021
- Decision date
- 8 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Representation
- Venue
- Sheffield
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs J Burgess brought claims against HLW120 Ltd t/a Abbey Eyewear of Tickhill. At the hearing on 8 June 2021 before Employment Judge Cox, the tribunal recorded that the holiday pay claim was dismissed because it had been withdrawn by the Claimant.
The tribunal found that the Claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment and ordered the Respondent to pay £3,531.60. No separate basic award, compensatory award, or interest was identified in the judgment for that sum.
The tribunal also made a further award of £392.40 under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide the Claimant with a statement of employment particulars. The judgment does not set out any wider reasoning beyond those short findings and orders.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The claim for holiday pay was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal held that the Claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment and ordered payment of £3,531.60. | Upheld | — | £3,532 |
| Other | A further award of £392.40 was made under section 38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a statement of employment particulars. | Upheld | — | £392 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,924
- 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.