Case 6019213/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Q Mema v Brentford Property Investments Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6019213/2024
- Decision date
- 20 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Yardley Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Q Mema
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent admitted liability at a preliminary hearing for the claimant's claims for notice pay, statutory redundancy pay and accrued but untaken holiday pay. The parties agreed the total sum due was £17,561.25, comprising £5,786.25 notice pay, £10,150 statutory redundancy pay, and £2,125 holiday pay less £500 already paid. The claimant withdrew the unfair dismissal claim in light of those admissions.
The respondent indicated it was experiencing financial difficulties and that certain properties were in receivership. Proceedings were stayed briefly to allow ACAS conciliation, but settlement was not achieved. The Tribunal noted that its function was to determine claims and issue judgments reflecting liability and quantum, and that the respondent's ability or inability to pay did not prevent it from doing so.
The Tribunal accordingly ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £17,561.25, with any enforcement or insolvency matters falling outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claimant withdrew the unfair dismissal claim at the preliminary hearing on 20 November 2025. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | Respondent admitted liability for statutory redundancy pay. | Upheld | — | £10,150 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay admitted by the respondent. | Upheld | — | £5,786 |
| Holiday pay | Accrued but untaken holiday pay of £2,125 less £500 already paid. | Upheld | — | £1,625 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,561
- 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.