Case 3200558/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Maklaj v STM Group (UK) Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3200558/2021
- Decision date
- 27 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Appearances
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Maklaj
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was held remotely by telephone at the East London Hearing Centre before Employment Judge Burgher. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. The tribunal recorded that a face-to-face hearing was not held because the relevant matters could be determined remotely.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's redundancy payment claim. It found that he was dismissed by reason of redundancy when the Bow Triangle Contract ended on 12 December 2020. The order was for a redundancy payment of £8,573.44, calculated from the claimant's age, 12 years' continuous employment, and a weekly pay figure of £535.84.
The claimant's notice pay claim was dismissed because he worked his notice. The tribunal also found that he was entitled to 4 days' accrued holiday pay, but the amount of that payment was not fixed in the judgment. Instead, the calculation was to be determined after written representations by 25 October 2021 if the parties did not agree the sum beforehand.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy when the Bow Triangle Contract ended on 12 December 2020. It ordered a redundancy payment calculated as £8,573.44 based on the claimant's age, 12 years' continuous employment, and a weekly pay figure of £535.84. | Upheld | — | £8,573 |
| Breach of contract | The claimant's notice pay claim failed because he worked his notice. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to 4 days' accrued holiday pay, but the calculation of that sum was to be determined after written representations if the parties did not agree the amount beforehand. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,573
- 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.