Case 1601184/2024 · Employment Tribunal
IN PERSON FOR THE v Mr Naqvi (director) — 2024
- Case reference
- 1601184/2024
- Decision date
- 26 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
IN PERSON FOR THE
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Swansea hearing by video on 25 September 2024 before Employment Judge S Povey, Zoe Crockett pursued complaints of unpaid statutory redundancy payment and unauthorised deduction from wages against TSP Kar Hire Ltd and Wye Knot Ltd. The tribunal recorded that the complaints against the First Respondent had been withdrawn by the Claimant and were dismissed under Rule 52.
The complaints against the Second Respondent were not contested and succeeded. The Second Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant £3,150.01, comprising £2,725.97 for statutory redundancy payment and £424.04 for holiday pay.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Against the First Respondent. The complaint had been withdrawn by the Claimant and was dismissed under Rule 52. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Against the First Respondent. The complaint had been withdrawn by the Claimant and was dismissed under Rule 52. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Against the Second Respondent. The complaint was not contested and succeeded. | Upheld | — | £2,726 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Against the Second Respondent. The complaint for unpaid holiday pay was not contested and succeeded. | Upheld | — | £424 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,150
- 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.