Case 1600495/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Sadehgi v Benjamin’s Interiors Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1600495/2020
- Decision date
- 22 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beard Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Sadehgi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Beard gave judgment on 22 April 2020 in the absence of an ET3 response form from the respondent, Benjamin’s Interiors Ltd. The judgment states that there was sufficient material before the tribunal to make a proper determination and that it was acting under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
On that basis, the tribunal upheld the claimant Ms N Sadehgi’s claims for unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, notice pay, and failure to provide written particulars of employment. The judgment is expressly limited to liability only.
No monetary award is recorded in the judgment text supplied, and no remedy split is given for any individual claim.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Upholded on Rule 21 basis in the absence of an ET3 response form and on the material before the tribunal; liability only. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment expressly upheld a redundancy payment claim; liability only. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment lists 'notice pay' as a claim upheld. Classified as breach of contract because no more specific claim label is used in the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The judgment lists 'failure to provide written particulars of employment' as upheld. No specific locked taxonomy category fits. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunal 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.