Case 2200779/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. O Foskett v Eisenberg Green Associates Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2200779/2021
- Decision date
- 16 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wade Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. O Foskett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 grounds of resistance. The tribunal therefore determined the claim on the papers under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 after considering the ET1.
The tribunal found that Eisenberg Green Associates Ltd had unlawfully failed to pay Mr O Foskett notice pay and had also failed to make a redundancy payment. It ordered payment of £15,423.34 in total, made up of £10,581.34 for notice pay and £4,842 in statutory redundancy pay.
The judgment also records that the respondent was to account to HMRC for the tax and national insurance due on this amount. No separate award for interest, basic award, compensatory award, or injury to feelings was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay notice pay and awarded £10,581.34 for notice pay. | Upheld | — | £10,581 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to make a redundancy payment and awarded £4,842 in statutory redundancy pay. | Upheld | — | £4,842 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,423
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunal Rules 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.