Case 2304408/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Raji v Time4U Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2304408/2022
- Decision date
- 27 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Wright Tribunal
- Panel members
- Tribunal Member R Effeny, Tribunal Member M Cann
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Raji
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed under section 100(1)(e) Employment Rights Act 1996. It also found that the breach of contract complaint relating to notice pay was well-founded.
The claim of direct race discrimination was found not to be well founded and was dismissed. The respondent was ordered to pay net sums for unpaid notice pay and loss of earnings, while the basic award was nil because the claimant had been employed for less than a year at dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed under section 100(1)(e) Employment Rights Act 1996 and awards loss of earnings. | Upheld | — | £16,312 |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states the claim of direct race discrimination was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the breach of contract complaint in relation to notice pay was well-founded and awards unpaid notice pay. | Upheld | — | £1,808 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,119
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £16,312
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 100(1)(e) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.