Case 6025674/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Desai v Madison CF UK Limited T/A 118 118 Money (118M) — 2026
- Case reference
- 6025674/2025
- Decision date
- 21 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tegerdine Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Desai
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant's breach of contract claim was well founded. The claimant was dismissed on 6 February 2025 and was contractually entitled to six months' notice pay but received only one month's notice pay. The balance of five months' notice pay claimed was £91,666.67.
Although the claim for five months' notice pay succeeded on its merits, the tribunal applied the statutory cap in Article 10 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, which limits damages for breach of contract in the Employment Tribunal to £25,000. The respondent was therefore ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £25,000, with payment due on or before 4 February 2026. No uplift was awarded under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim for unpaid notice pay (five months' balance of contractual six months' notice) succeeded. The tribunal calculated the underlying loss at £91,666.67 but capped damages at £25,000 pursuant to Article 10 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. | Upheld | — | £25,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £25,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Article 10 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.