Case 1301646/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Malhi v IDS Electrical Limited (In voluntary liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1301646/2023
- Decision date
- 3 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kight Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Malhi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Birmingham by CVP on 3 November 2023, before Employment Judge Kight, the tribunal considered Mr T Malhi's claims against IDS Electrical Limited (in voluntary liquidation). The record identifies the claims as breach of contract, redundancy, unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages, and working time.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed together because the tribunal found the claims were presented outside the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to present them in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed together because the tribunal found the claims were presented outside the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to present them in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed together because the tribunal found the claims were presented outside the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to present them in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed together because the tribunal found the claims were presented outside the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to present them in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed together because the tribunal found the claims were presented outside the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to present them in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- reasonably practicable
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.