Case 6031446/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. E Abdelaziz v Gigate Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6031446/2025
- Decision date
- 1 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. E Abdelaziz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Watford Employment Tribunal on 26 August 2025. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made of part of the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. The tribunal therefore dealt with the notice pay and holiday entitlement complaints on a summary basis.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It ordered the respondent to pay £20,451.99 gross, made up of £20,121.75 for notice pay and £330.24 for pension contributions during the notice period.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £8,668.00 gross for that complaint. The total gross amount ordered was £29,119.99.
The judgment records that the other complaints could not properly be determined on a summary basis and would proceed to a final hearing, which would consider both liability and remedy issues.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; award comprised £20,121.75 notice pay and £330.24 pension contributions during notice. | Upheld | — | £20,452 |
| Holiday pay | Judgment refers to failure to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement; classified here as holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £8,668 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £29,120
- 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.