Case 3305914/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Gaydu v Independent Living Alternatives — 2021
- Case reference
- 3305914/2021
- Decision date
- 9 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howden-Evans Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Gaydu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place on 25 October 2021 at Watford by video. The claimant did not attend, and there had been no correspondence from him. The tribunal noted that the respondent had complied with case management directions and had provided documents and witness statements, whereas the claimant had not provided documents or witness evidence. The tribunal decided to continue in the claimant's absence under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
On the material before it, the tribunal considered that the claimant was seeking a statutory redundancy payment and notice pay. It identified two fundamental difficulties with those claims. First, the claimant appeared to have resigned from his position with the respondent, and the tribunal stated that a person is only entitled to notice pay and/or a redundancy payment if dismissed by their employer. Second, the tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee of the respondent, and said that only an employee is eligible to claim a statutory redundancy payment and statutory minimum notice pay.
The tribunal therefore found both the statutory redundancy payment claim and the notice pay claim were not well founded and dismissed the proceedings. The judgment also stated that if the claimant wished to seek reconsideration, he should apply within 14 days of the judgment being sent, explaining the non-compliance, his non-attendance, and why reconsideration would be in the interests of justice.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal held the claimant appeared to have resigned and was not an employee of the respondent, so he was not entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal treated the notice pay claim as failing because the claimant appeared to have resigned and was not an employee, so he was not entitled to statutory minimum notice pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.