Case 1600976/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Vosoughifard v Langland Care Limited T/A Brynfield Manor Care Home — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600976/2021
- Decision date
- 14 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harfield Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Vosoughifard
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 4 April 2022, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the unfair dismissal and redundancy payment complaints should not be struck out. The claimant did not make representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
The Tribunal therefore struck out both the unfair dismissal and redundancy payment complaints. The judgment records that the claimant's remaining claims would be listed for hearing and that a Notice of Hearing would follow shortly. No monetary remedy was assessed in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint after the claimant failed to make representations, or failed to make sufficient representations, in response to the Tribunal's 4 April 2022 letter and did not request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal struck out the redundancy payment complaint for the same reason as the unfair dismissal complaint: no representations, or no sufficient representations, were made in response to the Tribunal's 4 April 2022 letter, and no hearing was requested. | Struck out | — | — |
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.