Case 4113048/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Mossman v Habeel Tariq — 2020
- Case reference
- 4113048/2019
- Decision date
- 5 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Gall
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Mossman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim arose after the claimant's employment in a print shop ended when the business closed without prior notice. The claimant worked from 1 March 2011 to 3 July 2019, went on holiday on 18 June 2019, became seriously ill in Tenerife, and later could not contact Mr Tariq when he returned to Scotland and found the shop closed. The tribunal heard only from the claimant and accepted that no ET3 had been lodged. It found that, although the holiday pay and notice pay claims were presented out of time, it was not reasonably practicable to bring them sooner because the claimant had been told by ACAS that there was a six-month period, had health issues, and had no earlier tribunal experience, so time was extended for those claims.
On the employer issue, the tribunal accepted that ASA Assets & Investments Ltd had been dissolved on 3 April 2018 and could not have been the employer at termination. It found that Mr Tariq was the person acting as employer at the end of the employment. It held that the claimant had eight complete years' service and was entitled to eight weeks' notice or payment in lieu of notice. Because no notice or pay in lieu had been given, the tribunal awarded £969.23 for breach of contract.
The tribunal also held that the closure of the business validly founded a redundancy payment claim. Taking account of the claimant's age, length of service, and the end of the business, it found he was entitled to 12 weeks' redundancy pay, totalling £1,453.85. The holiday pay claim failed on the facts: the holiday year ran from January to December, the claimant had taken holidays on 1 and 2 January, one day at Easter, and 10 days in June, so there was no accrued but untaken leave at termination.
Finally, the tribunal found that no statement of employment particulars had been issued. Applying section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, it made the minimum award of two weeks' pay because there were no exceptional circumstances and it was not persuaded that the higher award would be just and equitable. That award was £242.30. The total ordered to be paid was £2,665.38.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Time was extended to permit the claim to proceed, but the tribunal found the claimant had no holiday leave accrued but untaken at termination. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Awarded for 8 weeks' notice pay/payment in lieu of notice after the tribunal found Mr Tariq was the employer at termination. | Upheld | — | £969 |
| Redundancy | Awarded because the business had ceased to operate; the claimant had 8 complete years' service and was aged 54. | Upheld | — | £1,454 |
| Other | Section 38 Employment Act 2002 award for failure to issue a statement of main terms and conditions; the tribunal awarded the minimum 2 weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £242 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,665
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- not reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
- Section 38 of the Employment Act 2002
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.