Case 2601486/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Z Siraj v A1 Cars Ashby Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2601486/2022
- Decision date
- 5 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Z Siraj
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which the tribunal recorded that the claim for unfair dismissal succeeded. It also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. The respondent was A1 Cars Ashby Limited and the claimant was Ms Z Siraj.
On remedy, the tribunal recorded that the claimant had worked for 8 complete years and was therefore entitled to 8 weeks' notice at £360.92 per week, producing notice pay of £3,163.84. It also awarded a basic award of 8 weeks' gross pay, assessed at £3,858.46. The compensatory award was calculated by reference to 52 weeks' net pay, made up of 5 weeks at full pay of £1,977.84 and 47 weeks at the difference between the claimant's pay with the respondent and her net pay in her new role, recorded as £1,624.32, giving a compensatory award of £3,602.16.
The total sum awarded to the claimant was £10,624.46.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the unfair dismissal claim succeeded and awarded a basic award plus a compensatory award. | Upheld | — | £7,461 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the dismissal was in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded 8 weeks' notice pay. | Upheld | — | £3,164 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,624
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,858
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £3,602
- 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.