Case 3220501/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Admasu v Carebrook Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3220501/2020
- Decision date
- 10 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moor Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Admasu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was heard by Employment Judge Moor on 10 June 2021. The claimant, Mr L Admasu, was in person and the respondent, Carebrook Limited, was represented by its managing director, Mr G Loughran. The tribunal recorded that the claimant was entitled to 8 weeks' contractual notice of termination of his employment.
On that basis, the breach of contract claim succeeded. The tribunal ordered the respondent, by consent, to pay the claimant £2,500. No separate breakdown of that sum was given in the judgment.
The tribunal rejected the remaining claims. It found that the claims for a statutory or contractual redundancy payment were not well-founded and did not succeed, and it also found that the unfair dismissal complaint was not well-founded and did not succeed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the breach of contract claim succeeded because the claimant was entitled to 8 weeks' contractual notice of termination. The respondent was ordered, by consent, to pay £2,500. | Upheld | — | £2,500 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claims for a statutory or contractual redundancy payment were not well-founded and did not succeed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal was found not well-founded and did not succeed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,500
- 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.