Case 3301879/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D de Azevedo v Isa’s Cleaning Service Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3301879/2020
- Decision date
- 9 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D de Azevedo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in favour of Mr D de Azevedo against Isa’s Cleaning Service Ltd. The tribunal found the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £5,256.00. It also found that he had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £9,855.00.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,525.00. It also found that the respondent had failed to issue written particulars and ordered payment of £1,752.00 in respect of 4 weeks' pay.
The judgment states that the sums at paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 are gross and subject to statutory deductions. The extracted text gives no further reasons beyond the Rule 21 disposition and the awards set out in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages awarded in the sum of £5,256.00. | Upheld | — | £5,256 |
| Redundancy | The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £9,855.00. | Upheld | — | £9,855 |
| Holiday pay | The respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement; £1,525.00 was ordered. | Upheld | — | £1,525 |
| Other | The respondent failed to issue written particulars and was ordered to pay £1,752.00 in respect of 4 weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £1,752 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,388
- 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.