Case 2601044/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Abdi v Sidwell Regeneration Ltd (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) — 2019
- Case reference
- 2601044/2019
- Decision date
- 21 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rachel Broughton
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Abdi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim form referred to unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and unlawful deduction of wages in relation to unpaid holiday pay. The respondent filed no response, and a Rule 21 default judgment was entered on 4 September 2019. The hearing on 23 September 2019 before Employment Judge Rachel Broughton, sitting alone, was therefore a remedy hearing and a hearing to determine the effective date of termination.
The claimant had worked for the respondent from 15 November 2007, following a TUPE transfer on 1 July 2017, as a security officer. His unchallenged evidence was that from December 2017 he normally worked two 12-hour shifts each week, on Friday and Saturday, and that he had taken annual leave on 8 and 9 November 2018. On 17 November 2018 he received a text from the operations manager saying he was not on the roster, should not attend that night or he would be sent home, and that the reason would be discussed on Monday. The claimant did not attend work again after that date.
Applying section 97(1) ERA 1996 and the approach in Chapman v Letheby and Christopher Ltd, the tribunal found that the text could be treated as a dismissal communication as understood by an ordinary reasonable employee, and that any ambiguity should be resolved in the claimant's favour. It accepted the claimant's evidence that he understood his employment to have ended on 17 November 2018, and fixed that date as the effective date of termination.
The tribunal also found that no disciplinary or dismissal process had been carried out in relation to the alleged performance issues: the allegations were not clarified, the claimant was not given an opportunity to respond, and there was no hearing or appeal. On remedy, the claimant said he had looked for other work and started new employment on 18 March 2019. The revised schedule of loss led to a net award of £9,401.87, made up of a basic award of £2,644.50, a compensatory award of £6,046.25 including a 25% uplift, and holiday pay of £711.12. The tribunal recorded that the Recoupment Regulations did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Default judgment under Rule 21 was entered. The remedy hearing fixed the effective date of termination at 17 November 2018 and the schedule itemised a basic award and compensatory award. | Upheld | — | £8,691 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claim form referred to wrongful dismissal. The remedy schedule in the judgment did not set out a separate damages figure for it. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was for unpaid holiday pay under section 23(1) ERA 1996. The schedule awarded holiday pay of £711.12 net. | Upheld | — | £711 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,402
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,645
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £6,046
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.97(1) ERA 1996
- balance of probabilities
- Chapman v Letheby and Christopher Ltd
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.