Case 1306106/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1306106/2018
- Decision date
- 17 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hughes Signed
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 11 and 12 March 2020, Employment Judge Hughes found that Mr A Balu was unfairly dismissed by Masterfreight Ltd. The tribunal also found that Mr Balu did not cause or contribute to his dismissal. It concluded that, if the respondent had followed a fair procedure, he would have been dismissed on notice in six weeks' time.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £2,840 compensation. It also held that the breach of contract claim, brought in respect of notice pay, was well-founded, and stated that those damages were included in the £2,840 sum. The claims for unauthorised deductions from wages and for a redundancy payment were dismissed on withdrawal, and the costs application was also withdrawn.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and that he did not cause or contribute to his dismissal. It found that, had a fair procedure been followed, he would have been dismissed on notice in six weeks' time. The tribunal ordered payment of £2,840 compensation, with the breach of contract damages included in that sum. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay claim was found well-founded. The tribunal said the damages were included in the £2,840 ordered by way of compensation. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,840
- across all upheld claims
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.