Case 2406119/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Ali v Spicy & Spicy Ltd t/a La Qila Deansgate — 2019
- Case reference
- 2406119/2019
- Decision date
- 24 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Ali
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a response, so the tribunal entered judgment under Rule 21. It recorded that Mr I Ali was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered the respondent to pay £1,540, said to be equivalent to seven weeks' pay.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,760. The judgment further stated that the complaints of unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions from pay succeeded.
The remedy for the unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions claims was to be determined at a remedy hearing listed for 19 December 2019 before an Employment Judge sitting alone. The judgment also attached the standard interest notice, stating that unpaid sums would carry simple interest at 8% from 25 October 2019 if not paid within 14 days of the written judgment being sent.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings 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 £1,540, described as the equivalent of seven weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £1,540 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,760. | Upheld | — | £1,760 |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal succeeded, but the remedy to which the claimant was entitled was to be determined at a remedy hearing listed for 19 December 2019. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,300
- 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.