Case 1801979/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Kaluzna v Bahadeen Omar Mohammed Kochar — 2019
- Case reference
- 1801979/2019
- Decision date
- 24 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Kaluzna
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that Mrs A Kaluzna was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. No separate damages were awarded for that breach because the same loss was covered by the compensation awarded for unfair dismissal.
The Tribunal also found that she was dismissed by reason of redundancy and ordered the Respondent to pay a redundancy payment of £1,921.66. Her unfair dismissal claim succeeded and compensation of £8,800 was awarded.
The claim relating to failure to pay Statutory Sick Pay was dismissed because the Tribunal said it had no power to deal with that claim. The hearing listed for 28 August 2019 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The Tribunal found a breach of contract in respect of notice, but made no separate damages award because that loss was covered by the unfair dismissal compensation. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,922 |
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £8,800 |
| Other | The claim relating to failure to pay Statutory Sick Pay was dismissed because the Tribunal said it had no power to deal with it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,722
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £8,800
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.