Case 2402969/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Kareem v Logenthiran Loganathan — 2020
- Case reference
- 2402969/2019
- Decision date
- 24 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sherratt REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Kareem
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Manchester on 11 February 2020, Employment Judge Sherratt found that Mr S Kareem had been unfairly dismissed and wrongfully dismissed by Logenthiran Loganathan. On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £1,017.90, calculated as 26 hours per week at £7.83 per hour for 5 years, and a compensatory award of £1,808.73, calculated as 11 fewer hours per week at £7.83 per hour for 21 weeks.
On the wrongful dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the claimant had mitigated his loss and, after allowing for sums received, awarded damages of £430.65. That figure was calculated as 11 hours lost per week at £7.83 per hour for 5 weeks.
The claimant's holiday pay claim was dismissed for want of evidence. The total amount payable under the judgment was £3,257.28.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It awarded a basic award of £1,017.90 and a compensatory award of £1,808.73, both calculated by reference to weekly hours at £7.83. | Upheld | — | £2,827 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was wrongfully dismissed. It said the claimant had mitigated his loss and, after allowing for sums received, awarded damages of £430.65. | Upheld | — | £431 |
| Holiday pay | The claimant's holiday pay claim was dismissed for want of evidence. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,257
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,018
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,809
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.