Case 2303571/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Kazanti v Dique Ltd (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2303571/2021
- Decision date
- 17 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Parkin Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Kazanti
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Miss K Kazanti’s employment with Dique Ltd began on 1 August 2019 and that her effective date of termination was 30 April 2021. On that basis, the tribunal held that she did not have the two years’ continuous service needed for a redundancy payment claim.
The redundancy payment claim was therefore dismissed for lack of continuous service. The tribunal also dealt with the claimant’s entitlement to accrued paid annual leave outstanding at the termination date, and ordered payment under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998.
The tribunal awarded the claimant £1,927.79 gross in respect of that outstanding leave. No other remedy components were recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Dismissed for lack of continuous service because the claimant had been employed for less than 2 years. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Award made pursuant to regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 for accrued paid annual leave outstanding on the termination date. | Upheld | — | £1,928 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,928
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
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.