Case 3303874/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr T Cokgezici v Transit Part Ltd — 2025

Case reference: 3303874/2023
Decision date: 2 January 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Alliott Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr T Cokgezici

Respondent

Transit Part Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

In a Rule 21 judgment, Employment Judge Alliott Date found that Mr T Cokgezici had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,260.50. The tribunal also found that Transit Part Ltd had failed to pay his holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £986.40.

The judgment records that the age discrimination claim and the religion and belief discrimination claim were dismissed upon withdrawal. No separate substantive findings were made on those discrimination claims, and no discrimination remedy was awarded.

The total monetary award recorded in the judgment was £3,246.90.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Redundancy	The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,260.50.	Upheld	—	£2,261
Holiday pay	The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £986.40.	Upheld	—	£986
Age discrimination	The judgment states that the age discrimination claim was dismissed upon withdrawal.	Withdrawn	Age	—
Religion or belief discrimination	The judgment states that the religion and belief discrimination claim was dismissed upon withdrawal.	Withdrawn	Religion or belief	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £3,247; across all upheld claims

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.