Case 1801106/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v K Tat v Harvard Technology Ltd (In Administration) — 2019
- Case reference
- 1801106/2019
- Decision date
- 17 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr V K Tat, brought a claim against Harvard Technology Limited (In Administration). The respondent did not enter an appearance and did not attend the hearing in Leeds on 17 October 2019 before Employment Judge Lancaster. The tribunal first found that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and that it had been presented within a reasonable time after 9 March 2019, so time for presentation was extended and the claim was allowed to proceed.
The substantive claim was for a protective award, and that claim succeeded. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 10 December 2018. The written record also states that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefit) Regulations 1996, regulations 6, 7 and 8, applied to the award.
The judgment does not record a cash figure for the award in the extracted text. It states that any award would be postponed pending service of a recoupment notice by the Secretary of State in respect of relevant benefits received by the claimant in the prescribed period, and that only the balance of any remuneration due would then be payable directly to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim succeeded. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 10 December 2018, but the extracted judgment text does not state the monetary figure. | Upheld | — | — |
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.