Case 2300022/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Amresh Koonjbeharee v Rowena House Limited and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 2300022/2024
- Decision date
- 22 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Fowell
- Panel members
- Mr J Hutchings, Mr W Dixon
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Amresh Koonjbeharee
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a former Team Leader at Rowena House care home, brought claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination on grounds of age, race and sex, redundancy pay, unlawful deduction from wages, working time and breach of contract against the company (now in voluntary liquidation since November 2023) and its director and owner, Ms Cader. The respondents did not appear at the hearing. The claimant attended in person and provided a three-page statement from a former supervisor, two payslips and a timesheet from late 2020, but no witness statement of his own and no further documentary evidence.
The Tribunal found that the discrimination claims were unclear or 'completely obscure', with no particulars provided despite an earlier direction from Employment Judge Evans asking the claimant to identify the acts of discrimination. On unfair dismissal, the Tribunal observed there may have been a potentially valid claim on its face, but noted this was a redundancy situation arising from the closure of the care home (everyone was dismissed at the same time) and that there was a dispute as to whether the claimant was even attending work in the last month or two of his employment. On the wages claim, the Tribunal saw no logical basis for the assertion that salary had been under-declared, as the claimant said he had been paid at the higher level throughout. Redundancy and notice/holiday/wages matters had been dealt with through the Redundancy Payments Service, from which the claimant said he had received about £1,400 or £1,500, but no documentary evidence of that process was supplied.
Weighing whether to adjourn again or decide on the evidence presented, the Tribunal had regard to the overriding objective and the interests of other Tribunal users, noting two prior preliminary hearings and little work by the claimant to explain and evidence the claims. It concluded it was not in the interests of justice to adjourn further and dismissed all the claims in their entirety for lack of supporting evidence.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal noted there may have been a potentially valid claim on the face of it, but it was dismissed on the evidence presented. No documentary evidence or witness statement provided by the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Tribunal described the basis of the age discrimination complaint as 'completely obscure'. No particulars provided despite a prior request from Employment Judge Evans. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Tribunal noted the claim was unclear; the judgment records that the second respondent is said to be of the same ethnic origin as the claimant, and no further particulars were provided. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Tribunal described the basis of the sex discrimination complaint as 'completely obscure'. No particulars provided. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Redundancy | Claimant indicated he had received approximately £1,400 or £1,500 via the Redundancy Payments Service; no documentary evidence of that process or amounts was provided to the Tribunal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claimant alleged under-declaration of salary (about £30,000 vs roughly half declared) and sought roughly £15,000 per year for the duration of employment; Tribunal found no logical basis as he was paid at that level throughout, and no quantification of any unpaid incentives was possible. |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- overriding objective
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.