Case 2307964/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Damani v Tacticmed Limited Heard — 2021
- Case reference
- 2307964/2020
- Decision date
- 27 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pritchard Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Damani
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Pritchard heard the case on 27 October 2021 by CVP. The Claimant, Mr P Damani, appeared in person and the Respondent, Tacticmed Limited, was represented by Ms E Farrow, company director.
The tribunal held that the Respondent breached the Claimant’s contract of employment by failing to pay notice pay. It ordered the Respondent to pay Mr Damani £1,531.37 net in respect of that breach.
The tribunal also found that the Respondent made unauthorised deductions from the Claimant’s wages. It ordered payment of £246.04 net for that claim. No separate remedy breakdown beyond those two sums is recorded in the written judgment record.
The total of the two awards is £1,777.41 net. The judgment notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the Respondent breached the contract of employment by failing to pay notice pay and ordered payment of £1,531.37 net. | Upheld | — | £1,531 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the Respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £246.04 net. | Upheld | — | £246 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,777
- across all upheld claims
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.