Case 2200969/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Rozycki (Counsel) For the v Mr A Rands (Director) assisted by Mr M Rands (Friend) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2200969/2021
- Decision date
- 4 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Professor
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Rozycki (Counsel) For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the London Central CVP hearing on 4 May 2022, Employment Judge Professor A C Neal held that Mr R de Jager’s claims against Quantemplate Research Limited for non-payment of notice money due, non-payment of commission due, and non-payment of holiday entitlement due were all well founded. The written judgment is brief and does not set out detailed reasons beyond recording that the three non-payment claims succeeded.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a single lump sum of £10,206.60. The written record does not split that sum between notice, commission, and holiday entitlement, and it does not identify any separate remedy components beyond the overall award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claim for non-payment of notice money due was well founded. The written record does not apportion the lump-sum award between the successful heads of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claim for non-payment of commission due was well founded. The written record does not apportion the lump-sum award between the successful heads of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claim for non-payment of holiday entitlement due was well founded. The written record does not apportion the lump-sum award between the successful heads of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,207
- 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.