Case 2304878/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Avasiloaia v Collider Limited (In Voluntary Liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2304878/2020
- Decision date
- 25 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Keogh Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Avasiloaia
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr I Avasiloaia, brought a claim for unfair dismissal against Collider Limited (In Voluntary Liquidation). The case was heard at London South Employment Tribunal by CVP on 25 February 2022 before Employment Judge Keogh, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by Mr Joliffe and Ms Harker on behalf of the joint liquidators.
The tribunal's written judgment records that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was successful. It ordered the respondent to pay compensation of £10,744.00. No further factual findings, liability reasoning, or remedy calculation are set out in the written record.
The notes state that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. The extracted decision therefore records the outcome and compensation figure only, without a written explanation of the tribunal's reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal stated that the claimant's claim for unfair dismissal was successful and ordered the respondent to pay compensation of £10,744.00. The judgment does not break that figure down into basic and compensatory awards. | Upheld | — | £10,744 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,744
- across all upheld claims
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.