Case 1802421/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Rhodes v AJM Polyfilters Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1802421/2023
- Decision date
- 26 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jaleel Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Rhodes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Leeds on 5 September 2023, Employment Judge Jaleel heard the claim against AJM Polyfilters Ltd. The respondent did not attend. The tribunal held that the claimant, Mr A Rhodes, was unfairly dismissed and recorded that the unfair dismissal claim succeeded. It awarded a basic award of £4,282.50.
The tribunal also found that the respondent was in breach of contract because it dismissed the claimant without notice. It ordered the respondent to pay £4,615.00 gross as damages for that breach. In addition, the tribunal found a breach of section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 in relation to the duty to provide full and accurate written particulars of employment, and ordered payment of £1,846.15, described as the amount equal to two weeks' pay.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal held the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded a basic award of £4,282.50. | Upheld | — | £4,283 |
| Breach of contract | Tribunal found the respondent breached contract by dismissing the claimant without notice and awarded £4,615.00 gross as damages. | Upheld | — | £4,615 |
| Other | Tribunal found a breach of section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide full and accurate written particulars of employment and awarded £1,846.15, described as the amount equal to two weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £1,846 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,744
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £4,283
- statutory, unfair dismissal
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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.