Case 3200860/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Maddin v Ms H Odedra and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 3200860/2020
- Decision date
- 4 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Appearances
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M Maddin
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal amended the name of the second respondent to Diabhi UK Ltd. It found that there had been a transfer of undertakings from the first respondent to the second respondent on 29 February 2020, and that a specific term of the commercial agreement between them was to dismiss all employees. On that basis, and pursuant to the TUPE regulations 2006, the second respondent was liable for the claimant's successful claims.
The claimant succeeded in his claim for four weeks' notice outstanding, which the tribunal valued at £1,313.52. He also succeeded in his redundancy payment claim, which was awarded at £2,462.85, calculated by reference to £328.38 x 7.5.
The claim for accrued holiday pay failed and was dismissed. The tribunal recorded a total sum of £3,776.37 in respect of the claimant's successful claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to 4 weeks' notice outstanding, totalling £1,313.52. | Upheld | — | £1,314 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal awarded a redundancy payment of £2,462.85, calculated as £328.38 x 7.5. | Upheld | — | £2,463 |
| Holiday pay | The claim for accrued holiday pay failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,776
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- TUPE regulations 2006, regulations 3 and 4
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.