Case 1303033/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Loading page content.
TopCase 1303033/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In Person Interpreter : Mr. Miernik (Polish interpreter)
Employment Judge Wedderspoon with members Ms M Stewart and Mrs S Ray found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by Xing Sheng Limited on 15 May 2022. The Tribunal preferred the claimant's evidence (supported by a contemporaneous phone recording and corroborating evidence from Mr Samra) that he had been informed the business had closed and there was no work for him; the respondent's later attempts to re-invite the claimant back were not credible. The dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair as no admissible reason was advanced.
The Tribunal found by reason of TUPE that the claimant's continuous service ran from 5 May 2016, entitling him to four weeks' notice pay rather than the two weeks paid. Holiday pay of 1.5 days was awarded, and two weeks' pay for failure to provide written terms and conditions. The unlawful deductions claim relating to 80% pay during March-April 2020 was dismissed as out of time.
A basic award of £3,501.36 was made. The compensatory award and ACAS uplift were postponed to a remedy hearing on 8 March 2024. PDF text was truncated; the full schedule of issues was not entirely visible.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award awarded; compensatory award and ACAS uplift to be assessed at a further remedy hearing on 8 March 2024. | Upheld | — | £3,501 |
| Wrongful dismissal | 4 weeks' notice pay (gross). Continuity of employment back-dated to 5 May 2016 by reason of TUPE. | Upheld | — | £2,155 |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Holiday pay | 1.5 days holiday pay (gross). | Upheld | — | £162 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Out of time; the claimant did not discharge burden of showing it was not reasonably feasible to bring claim in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Two weeks' pay for failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions (s.1 ERA 1996). | Upheld | — | £1,077 |
The 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.
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.