Case 2401589/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Aiyegbusi v Oak Tree (Construction Design & Management) Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2401589/2024
- Decision date
- 12 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buzzard REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Aiyegbusi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld Mr Aiyegbusi's unfair dismissal complaint against Oak Tree (Construction Design & Management) Limited. It found that he was unfairly dismissed, but also found that he would have been fairly dismissed in any event if a fair process had been followed, with dismissal delayed by two weeks. The tribunal recorded that he had been paid sick pay that he was not entitled to in the amount of £481.36 at the time of dismissal.
The compensatory award was fixed at £722.34, calculated as two weeks' gross pay at the agreed rate of £601.85 per week less the £481.36 overpayment. The tribunal noted that the claimant had received a statutory redundancy payment and therefore was not entitled to a basic award.
The claimant's notice pay complaint was dismissed, as was his complaint that the respondent made an unlawful deduction from his final pay.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It also found that he would have been fairly dismissed in any event, but only after a fair process and with a two-week delay. The compensatory award of £722.34 was calculated as two weeks' gross pay at £601.85 per week less £481.36 of sick pay overpaid at dismissal. No basic award was made because the claimant had received a statutory redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £722 |
| Breach of contract | The complaint that the respondent failed to pay notice pay was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint that the respondent made an unlawful deduction from the claimant's final pay was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £722
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £722
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.