Case 3305517/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Kwabena Wiredu v Optim Management Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3305517/2023
- Decision date
- 24 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Kwabena Wiredu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Kwabena Wiredu was employed by Optim Management Ltd from 1 August 2000 and was dismissed with effect from 10 March 2023. The respondent did not attend the preliminary hearing and did not file a response. The tribunal proceeded in its absence and accepted the claimant's evidence that on 3 March 2023 he was told his services would not be needed from 10 March 2023, so his employment was terminated on 3 March 2023 with only one week's notice.
On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal applied s.98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and found that the respondent had not shown a potentially fair reason for dismissal. It accepted the claimant's evidence that he had not given notice in 2021, and regarded the suggestion that he had given 18 months' notice as improbable. The tribunal therefore found the dismissal unfair.
For remedy, the tribunal calculated a basic award using the claimant's 22-plus years' service, a 25 multiplier and the statutory weekly pay cap of £571, resulting in £14,275. The compensatory award was £3,546.14 net, made up of £500 for loss of statutory rights and £3,046.14 for six weeks' loss of earnings from 26 May 2023 to 29 June 2023. It did not award loss of earnings before 26 May 2023 because it treated that period as covered by notice pay, and it made no further loss of earnings award after 29 June 2023 because the claimant had started alternative work and had an earning capacity at least equal to what he had earned previously.
The tribunal also upheld the breach of contract claim for notice pay. It found that the claimant was entitled to a statutory minimum of 12 weeks' notice but had only been given one week, so it awarded damages for the remaining 11 weeks in the net sum of £5,584.59. The holiday pay claim succeeded in part: the tribunal accepted that bank holidays and earlier holiday periods in 2019 and 2020 had been paid, and that there was no contractual basis for rolling over holiday entitlement. It therefore awarded only the accrued but untaken entitlement for the 2022/23 holiday year, assessed as 13 days at £126.92 gross per day, totalling £1,649.96. The tribunal made no Acas uplift.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair under s.98 ERA 1996 and awarded a basic award of £14,275 plus a compensatory award of £3,546.14 net, made up of £500 for loss of statutory rights and £3,046.14 for loss of earnings from 26 May 2023 to 29 June 2023. | Upheld | — | £17,821 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim succeeded. The tribunal found the claimant was only given one week's notice and awarded damages for 11 weeks' notice at £507.69 net per week. | Upheld | — | £5,585 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday entitlement claim succeeded only in respect of the holiday year ending on the dismissal date. The tribunal found 13 days untaken holiday accrued to 10 March 2023 and awarded £1,649.96 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,650 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £25,056
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £14,275
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £3,546
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.98 ERA 1996
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.