Case 1400566/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. S. B Rajkumarsingh v Aura Care Living — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400566/2022
- Decision date
- 22 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. S. B Rajkumarsingh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Bristol Employment Tribunals on 10 February 2022. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The hearing listed for 18 November 2022 was cancelled.
On the merits recorded in the judgment, the tribunal found that Aura Care Living was in breach of contract in respect of notice. Damages of £22,500 were awarded for that breach.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. It ordered payment of £6,800 in respect of that claim. The judgment records a total award of £29,300.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the respondent was in breach of contract in respect of notice and must pay damages of £22,500. | Upheld | — | £22,500 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and must pay £6,800. | Upheld | — | £6,800 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £29,300
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.