Case 2202713/2013 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S De Silva Liyanage v High Commission for the Republic of Zambia — 2020
- Case reference
- 2202713/2013
- Decision date
- 13 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S De Silva Liyanage
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £826.32 in respect of that entitlement.
The tribunal also considered complaints of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and breach of contract. It held that it did not have jurisdiction to determine those claims because they were based on domestic law and the respondent had the benefit of state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978.
Those claims were therefore dismissed. The judgment does not record any separate award for the dismissed claims, and the only monetary order set out in the judgment was the holiday entitlement payment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £826.32. | Upheld | — | £826 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claim was based on domestic law and the respondent had state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claim was based on domestic law and the respondent had state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claim was based on domestic law and the respondent had state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £826
- 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.