Case 2400001/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Q Mohammed v Pozitive Energy Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2400001/2022
- Decision date
- 31 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Q Mohammed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the employment judge determined the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. On that basis, the tribunal entered judgment without a hearing on the merits of any disputed response.
The tribunal found that Mr Q Mohammed had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It ordered Pozitive Energy Ltd to pay damages of £2,118.59, calculated from gross monthly pay of £2,791.66 less £673.08 already paid, representing one week's pay.
The judgment states that the sums awarded are gross and must be paid in full, with Mr Mohammed responsible for accounting to HMRC for any tax and national insurance due. A separate notice explained that interest is payable under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if the sum is not paid within 14 days of the relevant decision day, which was identified as 31 March 2023.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £2,118.59, calculated from gross monthly pay of £2,791.66 less £673.08 already paid for one week's pay. | Upheld | — | £2,119 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,119
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21, Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Article 12, Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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.