Case 2400010/2024 · Employment Tribunal
R Lam v Teleperformance limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2400010/2024
- Decision date
- 24 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
2 namedClaimant
R Lam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting alone before Employment Judge Batten, dealt with three complaints brought by R Lam against Teleperformance Limited. The unfair dismissal complaint was not determined on its merits. It was struck out because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it, the claimant not having the necessary two years' service to bring such a claim.
The complaint about unpaid holiday entitlement failed and was dismissed. The judgment does not record any separate monetary award or a split between heads of loss. It simply records that the holiday entitlement complaint was not made out.
The Tribunal also rejected the complaint that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's final pay. On that issue, the Tribunal found that no unauthorised deductions had been made. No remedy or compensation was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim; the claimant lacked the necessary 2 years' service. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The complaint about unpaid holiday entitlement failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal found that the respondent did not make unauthorised deductions from the claimant's final pay. | 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.