Case 2309355/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Mosconi v Secretary of State for Business & Trade and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 2309355/2025
- Decision date
- 31 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr G Mosconi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant worked for the Second Respondent as a Teacher from 1 September 2024 until 4 July 2025. The Tribunal recorded that the Second Respondent did not provide a response after notice was re-sent to its registered address, and the Employment Judge decided under Rule 22(2) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 that the claim, or part of it, could properly be determined on the available material.
The Tribunal considered a letter dated 1 April 2025 which recorded agreed terms for termination of the Claimant's employment on 31 August 2025 on the ground of redundancy, including payment of normal salary and benefits until that date. The Claimant told the Tribunal he had received no further sums after 5 July 2025.
The Tribunal found that the Second Respondent did not pay the Claimant for the period 5 July 2025 to 31 August 2025 as agreed, and that it owed him £2,806.45 gross by way of a voluntary redundancy payment. The judgment required the Second Respondent to pay that sum, with the Claimant responsible for accounting to HMRC for any tax due.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The Tribunal found the Second Respondent did not pay the Claimant for the period 5 July 2025 to 31 August 2025, as it had agreed to do in connection with the termination of his employment, and described the sum as a voluntary redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £2,806 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,806
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22(2) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.