Case 2402036/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Daud v Barber Solicitors Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402036/2022
- Decision date
- 21 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Daud
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. On that basis, Employment Judge Holmes Date decided that a determination could properly be made of the claim without a response from the respondent.
The tribunal found that Mr J Daud had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment. The judgment records the calculation used: 14 complete years of service at one week per year for the period when the claimant was aged between 22 and 40, and 5 complete years of service at 1.5 weeks per year for the period when he was aged over 40, using a weekly pay figure of £313.31.
The resulting award was £6,736.17, made up of £4,386.34 and £2,349.83. The judgment states that the respondent must pay the claimant £6,736.17 in total. The attached notice explains that interest may apply if the award is not paid within 14 days after the judgment was sent to the parties, but no separate interest figure was assessed in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal proceeded under rule 21 because the respondent did not present a valid response on time. It found the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £6,736.17, calculated as £4,386.34 for 14 complete years at one week per year and £2,349.83 for 5 complete years at 1.5 weeks per year, using a weekly pay figure of £313.31. | Upheld | — | £6,736 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,736
- 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.