Case 3300178/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M El Ashry v Knights of Old Limited (in administration), and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3300178/2025
- Decision date
- 7 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M El Ashry
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal had previously made a protective award in favour of the claimant on 20 September 2024, the first respondent's administrators having consented to the claim proceeding. The claimant's weekly gross pay at the date of dismissal was £700.00, giving an entitlement of £9,002.00 in respect of the protected period. The Secretary of State had already paid £5,600.00 on account of that sum.
The parties were given an opportunity to show cause why judgment should not be entered against the first respondent for the balance, and no representations were received. The Tribunal therefore entered judgment against the first respondent, Knights of Old Limited (in administration), for the unpaid balance of £3,402.00. The Recoupment Regulations were noted as applying.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Protective award claim under TULRCA. The protective award itself was made on 20 September 2024; this judgment enters judgment against the first respondent for the unpaid balance (£9,002.00 entitlement less £5,600.00 already paid by the Secretary of State = £3,402.00). Classified as redundancy_pay as the closest available enum for a collective consultation protective award; no exact enum exists in the §4.4 taxonomy for protective awards. | Upheld | — | £3,402 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,402
- 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.