Case 1306890/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Ahmad v Butterfly Embroidery Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1306890/2019
- Decision date
- 18 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mark Butler
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Ahmad
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely at Birmingham on 16 and 17 February 2021 before Employment Judge Mark Butler. The tribunal recorded that the claimant, Mr T Ahmad, had not been continuously employed by Butterfly Embroidery Ltd for at least two years, so his ordinary unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
The tribunal also rejected the claimant's automatic unfair dismissal claim, finding that he was not dismissed for asserting a statutory right. In addition, it dismissed the claims for unpaid holiday pay and outstanding notice pay.
The written judgment states that, for the avoidance of doubt, all claims in the case were dismissed. The decision does not record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal claim dismissed because the claimant had not been continuously employed for at least two years. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim dismissed; the tribunal found the claimant was not dismissed for asserting a statutory right. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for unpaid holiday pay dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for outstanding notice pay dismissed. | 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.