Case 2401814/2025 · Employment Tribunal
N Patel v Nautic Engineering Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2401814/2025
- Decision date
- 17 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
N Patel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Eeley entered judgment under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal amended the respondent's title to its proper Companies House name. The claimant was found to have been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, with damages calculated as 12 weeks' gross statutory notice at £300.90 per week (£3,610.80) less a payment of £325.98 already received, giving £3,284.82. The claimant was also found to have been dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £4,776.75 (24 weeks x £300.90 = £7,221.60, less £2,444.85 already paid). Total payable £8,061.57.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Breach of contract in respect of notice (12 weeks' statutory notice). Rule 22 default judgment - no valid response filed. Calculated using gross weekly pay £300.90. | Upheld | — | £3,285 |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy: 24 weeks x £300.90 = £7,221.60 less £2,444.85 already paid. Rule 22 default judgment. | Upheld | — | £4,777 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,062
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 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.