Case 2301151/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Conde v Mr F Sanjoori and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301151/2023
- Decision date
- 26 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heath Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr P Conde
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr P Conde, was employed as a chef at the Château restaurant. The tribunal found that Mr F Sanjoori owned and operated the business through the trading name The Château Napoleon, and that the business declined during 2022, with the respondent exploring a sale before the restaurant closed in November 2022.
On redundancy pay, the tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy within s.139 ERA 1996 because the employer had ceased to carry on the business for which he was employed. It accepted the claimant’s schedule of loss and awarded redundancy pay of £12,436.20.
On notice pay, the tribunal found that the claimant was not given formal notice until 1 December 2022 and had not been paid the notice pay due on dismissal. Given his length of service, he was entitled to 12 weeks’ notice under s.86 ERA 1996, and the tribunal awarded £5,329.80 for breach of contract.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the dismissal was unfair because the claimant had not been given adequate warning of the redundancy situation or consulted about it. However, it also found that the business was always going to close and that warning or consultation would have made no difference to the eventual outcome, so a 100% Polkey reduction was applied to compensation. The monetary awards recorded in the judgment were the redundancy payment and notice pay, totalling £17,766.00.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy because the employer had ceased to carry on the business for which he was employed, and it accepted the schedule of loss figure of £12,436.20. | Upheld | — | £12,436 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant had not been given formal notice until 1 December 2022 and had not been paid the notice pay due on dismissal; it awarded £5,329.80 for 12 weeks' notice. | Upheld | — | £5,330 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because there had been no adequate warning or consultation, but applied a 100% Polkey reduction because consultation would have made no difference to the outcome. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,766
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.86 ERA 1996
- s.135 ERA 1996
- s.139 ERA 1996
- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd
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.