Case 3306219/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Ali v The London Clothing works (in voluntary liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 3306219/2021
- Decision date
- 11 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maxwell Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Ali
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal determined the case under rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time and did not attend the hearing. Judgment was therefore entered for the claimant, Mr M Ali, at Watford on 11 March 2022 before Employment Judge Maxwell.
On the merits, the tribunal found that Mr Ali had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It relied on his November 2020 payslip showing basic monthly pay of £936, which equated to £216 per week, and found that he had 10 complete years' service and was entitled to 10 weeks' notice. Damages for the notice claim were assessed at £2,160.
The tribunal also found that Mr Ali had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment. It recorded that he had been employed from 1 January 2010 until 31 October 2020, had 10 complete years' service, and was above the age of 41 for those years. The redundancy payment was calculated at 10 years x 1.5 weeks x £216, producing £3,240. The total award was £5,400.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages assessed at 10 weeks' notice at £216 per week. | Upheld | — | £2,160 |
| Redundancy | Found to have been dismissed by reason of redundancy; redundancy payment calculated on 10 complete years' service at 1.5 weeks per year using £216 weekly pay. | Upheld | — | £3,240 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,400
- 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.