Case 2305160/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Ward v Imaginative Catering Limited (in voluntary liquidation) and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 2305160/2025
- Decision date
- 10 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Perry Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr T Ward
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the Claimant's claims for notice pay and a redundancy payment against Imaginative Catering Limited (in voluntary liquidation) were well founded and succeeded. Imaginative Catering Limited was ordered to pay GBP 6,970 in respect of notice pay and GBP 6,970 in respect of a redundancy payment.
The tribunal found that the Claimant's claims against ST Events Catering Limited failed and were dismissed. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim against Imaginative Catering Limited (in voluntary liquidation) was well founded and succeeded. | Upheld | — | £6,970 |
| Redundancy | Redundancy payment claim against Imaginative Catering Limited (in voluntary liquidation) was well founded and succeeded. | Upheld | — | £6,970 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the Claimant's claims against ST Events Catering Limited fail and are dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the Claimant's claims against ST Events Catering Limited fail and are dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,940
- 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.