Case 2308141/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mohsin Mirchie v Oak Furnitureland Group Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2308141/2020
- Decision date
- 3 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Krepski Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mohsin Mirchie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMohsin Mirchie brought complaints of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal (notice pay), and unauthorised deduction from wages against Oak Furnitureland Group Limited. The case was heard at London South before Employment Judge Krepski on 1-3 March 2023, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by counsel.
The tribunal dismissed each complaint. It found that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well founded, the complaint of wrongful dismissal (notice pay) was not well founded, and the complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages was not well founded. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment describes this as wrongful dismissal (notice pay). | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as a complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.