Case 2402046/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Singh & Others (see attached schedule) v Kingdom Services Group Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402046/2021
- Decision date
- 1 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Singh & Others (see attached schedule)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the respondent did not terminate the claimants' contracts of employment. It found that the claimants had terminated their own contracts.
The tribunal further found that the claimants were not entitled to terminate their contracts because the respondent's conduct was not such that it gave them any reason to do so. The unfair dismissal claims under section 95(1)(a) and section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 were dismissed.
The claimants' claims in regard to unpaid wages and holiday were withdrawn by the claimants and formally dismissed. No monetary remedy was awarded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment dismissed the claimants' claims for unfair dismissal as defined by section 95(1)(a) and section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the claimants' claims in regard to unpaid wages were withdrawn by the claimants and formally dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records that the claimants' claims in regard to holiday were withdrawn by the claimants and formally dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 95(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 95(1)(c) 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.