Case 1305992/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Aniledio Lami 1st v Tapri Limited 2nd Respondent: Jaswinder Singh 3rd Respondent: Rajesh Patel — 2024
- Case reference
- 1305992/2024
- Decision date
- 12 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gidney Appearances
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Aniledio Lami 1st
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 12 December 2024 before Employment Judge Gidney sitting alone in the Midlands West Employment Tribunal, the tribunal joined Jaswinder Singh and Rajesh Patel as the 2nd and 3rd Respondents. The claimant was represented by his brother, Edison Lami, and none of the respondents attended.
The judgment records that the claimant's statutory sick pay claim was dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. It also records that the claimant's application to amend the Claim Form to include a claim of constructive dismissal was dismissed. The extracted judgment does not set out any reasons for the amendment refusal and contains no substantive findings on the merits of a constructive dismissal claim or any monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal dismissed the claimant's statutory sick pay claim on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The claimant's application to amend the Claim Form to include a constructive dismissal claim was dismissed. The judgment records a refusal of amendment rather than a substantive merits determination. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.