Case 2300573/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Friend v 20/20 Mailing Equipment Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300573/2023
- Decision date
- 28 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Friend
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 7 February 2023. The respondent did not present a valid response in time, so the Employment Judge entered judgment under rule 21 on the basis of the claim and the material before the tribunal. The hearing listed for 27 July 2023 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that Mr I Friend had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £6,873.60 gross. It also found that he was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment. The judgment records an award of £17,130, noting that this represented the maximum award the tribunal could make rather than the figure claimed, because the statutory redundancy cap at the relevant time was £571 per week and the claimant had 20 years' service.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and awarded £973.76 gross for holiday pay. The total awarded was £24,977.36.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Award for breach of contract in respect of notice pay. | Upheld | — | £6,874 |
| Redundancy | Awarded as the maximum statutory redundancy payment, based on the cap in force and 20 years' service. | Upheld | — | £17,130 |
| Holiday pay | Award for unpaid holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £974 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £24,977
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.