Case 1301911/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Abdelhamid Talla v K & C Catering Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1301911/2022
- Decision date
- 12 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Kelly Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Abdelhamid Talla
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge C Kelly heard the case at Birmingham by CVP on 12 October 2022. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent did not attend. The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence and made findings on unfair dismissal, unlawful deductions from wages, breach of contract, redundancy pay, holiday pay and the absence of written particulars.
On dismissal, the claimant accepted that the dismissal was substantively fair by reason of redundancy because the respondent had ceased trading, but said it was procedurally unfair because there had been no consultation. The tribunal declared that he had been unfairly dismissed. The judgment did not set out a separate basic award or compensatory award for unfair dismissal.
The tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully deducted salary for January and February 2022, unpaid service charges/tips for the period 1 October 2021 to 28 February 2022, and pension payments that had not been paid to the pension scheme. It also found that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £8,357.52. In relation to holiday pay, the tribunal noted that the sum claimed for lost holiday in 2020 was irrecoverable because it was not in the current holiday year at the point of dismissal, but it awarded unpaid holiday pay for 2021.
The tribunal also held that the respondent had failed to comply with the ACAS grievance provisions. It treated the claimant's repeated attempts to establish his position after the unannounced closure of the Cielo Restaurant as grievances, found that the respondent blocked further telephone contact, and described that as a complete disregard of the ACAS Code paragraphs dealing with grievances. A 25% uplift was added to the notice pay, unlawful deduction, holiday pay and written statement awards. The total ordered to be paid was £31,784.68 by 4pm on 26 October 2022.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal declared that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The claimant accepted that the dismissal was substantively fair by reason of redundancy because the respondent had ceased trading, but said it was procedurally unfair because there was no consultation. The judgment did not record a separate monetary award for this claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the respondent unlawfully deducted January 2022 salary (£833.33), February 2022 salary (£2,307.68), unpaid service charges/tips for 1 October 2021 to 28 February 2022 (£2,500), and pension payments not paid to the pension scheme (£3,908.48). The award line adds a 25% uplift to the base sum of £9,549.49. | Upheld | — | £11,937 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay was awarded as breach of contract: 12 weeks at £576.92 per week (£5,553.00), plus a 25% uplift of £1,388.25. | Upheld | — | £6,941 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal noted that the sum claimed for lost holiday in 2020 was irrecoverable because it was not in the current holiday year at dismissal, but it awarded unpaid holiday pay for 2021 of £1,730.76 together with a 25% uplift of £432.69. | Upheld | — | £2,163 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment in the total sum of £8,357.52. | Upheld | — | £8,358 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £31,785
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- ACAS Codes of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
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.