Case 2204769/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Almeida v Al Arez Ltd Heard via Cloud Video Platform — 2021
- Case reference
- 2204769/2020
- Decision date
- 16 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Almeida
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely on 9 February 2021 by Employment Judge Davidson. The tribunal recorded that the parties agreed to the hearing being conducted by cloud video platform under rule 46, that there were no technical difficulties, and that the participants were told it was an offence to record the proceedings.
Evidence was heard from the claimant, Giovanni Vieira, Mahamad Khalil and Mohamad Aladher. The judge recorded being satisfied that none of the witnesses was being coached or assisted by any unseen third party while giving evidence.
The judgment states that the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, notice pay and furlough pay failed and were dismissed. The short written record does not set out substantive reasons for those outcomes and notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties on 16 February 2021.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment refers to this as a claim for notice pay; the text does not use the label 'wrongful dismissal'. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to this as a claim for furlough pay; the text does not specify the legal label. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.