Case 2400059/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Ramezany v David Wood Baking Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2400059/2022
- Decision date
- 6 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Ramezany
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn claim 2400059/2022, the tribunal held that Mr Ramezany's relations with David Wood Baking Limited were not governed by a contract of employment between 18 September 2022 and 5 November 2022. It found no deduction from holiday pay, no entitlement to holiday pay for that period, no annual leave taken, and that he was not a worker. That claim was dismissed.
In claim 2402546/2022, the tribunal held that Mr Ramezany was not continuously employed for two years ending with the effective date of termination, so he did not have the protection of section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 against unfair dismissal. The unfair dismissal claim therefore failed.
The tribunal also found that Mr Ramezany did not repudiate his contract and that the respondent was required to give notice before termination. It held that terminating without notice breached the contract, but made no award of damages because the respondent had paid him in full for the contractual notice period, which would have expired on 11 February 2022. Claim 2402546/2022 was dismissed overall.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the claimant's relations with the respondent were not governed by a contract of employment between 18 September 2022 and 5 November 2022, that there was no deduction from holiday pay, and that he had no entitlement to holiday pay for that period because he was not a worker and had not taken annual leave. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was not continuously employed for two years ending with the effective date of termination, so section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 did not protect him. The extracted text also states that the last period of employment began on 5 November 2022 and ended on 4 February 2022, which appears internally inconsistent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the claimant did not repudiate his contract, so the respondent was required to give notice. It held that terminating without notice breached the contract, but made no award of damages because the respondent had already paid the claimant in full for the contractual notice period. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 94 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.