Case 6020398/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Mariga v AZ Farms (Riccall) Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6020398/2024
- Decision date
- 25 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Mariga
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal amended the respondent's name to AZ Farms (Riccall) Limited. It found that the breach of contract complaint concerning notice pay had not been presented within the applicable time limit, but that it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time and it was then presented within a further reasonable period.
The complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay was found well-founded, and the respondent was ordered to pay gross damages of 2307.68 pounds to reflect the likelihood of tax being payable as Post Employment Notice Pay. The tribunal also determined under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996 that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of 1153.84 pounds.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment identifies this as breach of contract in relation to notice pay and awards gross damages. | Upheld | — | £2,308 |
| Redundancy | The judgment determines under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996 that the claimant is entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £1,154 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,462
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- not reasonably practicable
- section 163 Employment Rights Act 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.