Case 1802540/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Singh v Medina Stores Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1802540/2021
- Decision date
- 16 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tegerdine Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Singh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Tegerdine, sitting alone at Leeds by CVP on 12 August 2021, held that Mr H Singh was unfairly dismissed by Medina Stores Limited. The judgment records the claimant as appearing in person and the respondent as represented by Mr W Hussain, a director of the respondent.
The tribunal also found that the claimant's claim for unauthorised deduction from wages, in respect of accrued but untaken holiday pay, was well founded. It held that he was entitled to a payment in lieu of 18.5 hours' accrued but untaken holiday.
A further claim for breach of contract was also found well founded. The tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to one week's notice pay. The judgment states that remedy for unfair dismissal, unauthorised deduction from wages and breach of contract would be decided at a further hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed. Remedy was to be decided at a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim well founded in respect of accrued but untaken holiday pay, and held that the claimant was entitled to a payment in lieu of 18.5 hours' accrued but untaken holiday. Remedy was reserved. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the breach of contract claim well founded in respect of notice pay, and held that the claimant was entitled to one week's notice pay. Remedy was reserved. | 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.