Case 1305629/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Tamm v Advanced Business Software & Solutions Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1305629/2024
- Decision date
- 22 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dimbylow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Tamm
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's application, made in writing on the morning of the hearing and repeated during the hearing, to adjourn the public preliminary hearing so that an Estonian interpreter could translate for him. Employment Judge Dimbylow granted the application and adjourned the public preliminary hearing to 10am on 8 and 9 December 2025.
The respondent applied for a costs order because the adjournment application had been made less than 7 days before the hearing. The tribunal granted that application and ordered the claimant to pay the respondent's costs, assessed at £2,250.00. The judgment did not determine the underlying substantive claims.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Listed claim category; the preliminary hearing judgment did not determine the substantive claim. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Listed claim category; the preliminary hearing judgment did not determine the substantive claim. | Other | Disability | — |
| Redundancy | Listed claim category; the preliminary hearing judgment did not determine the substantive claim. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Listed claim category; the preliminary hearing judgment did not determine the substantive claim. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Listed claim category; the preliminary hearing judgment did not determine the substantive claim. | Other | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Listed claim category; the preliminary hearing judgment did not determine the substantive claim. | Other | — | — |
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.