Case 2218509/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C H Tam v Sapiat Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2218509/2024
- Decision date
- 21 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Forde REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C H Tam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt London Central by CVP on 15 August 2024, Employment Judge Forde found that the claimant's ordinary unfair dismissal claim was well founded, his automatic unfair dismissal claim was not well founded, his notice pay claim succeeded, and his holiday pay claim succeeded for 1 to 13 January 2024.
On notice pay, the tribunal held that there was a well-founded breach of contract and awarded 4,279.84 as damages, calculated using net pay. On holiday pay, the tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay holiday accrued but not taken when the employment ended, and awarded 1,095.85, with the respondent responsible for tax or National Insurance.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed but reduced the compensatory award by 50% because of the claimant's failure to maintain contact with his employer before dismissal and because the work he was doing for the respondent had ended before dismissal. It calculated loss to 15 April 2024 and awarded a basic award of 2,572.00 and a compensatory award of 17,683.26. The judgment also records that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 applied, giving a prescribed element of 14,383.32 for the period 11 February 2024 to 15 August 2024 and a difference of 11,247.63; the preamble notes that some figures differed from those announced at the end of the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It reduced the compensatory award by 50% because the claimant had failed to maintain contact with the respondent before dismissal and because the work he was doing had ended before dismissal. The written judgment states a total monetary award of 30,630.95 for unfair dismissal, but the basic award and compensatory award stated earlier do not arithmetically match that figure. | Upheld | — | £25,631 |
| Other | Automatic unfair dismissal claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Notice pay claim succeeded as a breach of contract claim and damages were calculated using net pay. | Upheld | — | £4,280 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay succeeded for the period 1 to 13 January 2024; the tribunal treated this as an unauthorised deduction from wages and said the respondent was responsible for tax or National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £1,096 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £25,631
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,572
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £17,683
- 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.