Case 2203925/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T SALAMI v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham — 2021
- Case reference
- 2203925/2020
- Decision date
- 2 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T SALAMI
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at London Central by video on 2 February 2021 before Employment Judge P Klimov sitting alone. The claimant represented himself and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The written judgment records that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim failed and was dismissed. It also records that the claimant's breach of contract claim, identified in the judgment as wrongful dismissal, failed and was dismissed.
The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within the stated period. The written record does not set out the tribunal's reasoning or any remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The written judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim fails and is dismissed. Written reasons are not provided in the supplied judgment because reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The written judgment describes this as a claim for breach of contract (wrongful dismissal) and states that it fails and is dismissed. Written reasons are not provided in the supplied judgment because reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.