Case 2405005/2022 · Employment Tribunal
SIP Car Parks (1) Limited v Kamal Hamad — 2023
- Case reference
- 2405005/2022
- Decision date
- 22 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cline
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
SIP Car Parks (1) Limited
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the Claimant's employer's contract claim, which was stated to be for £1,976.04. Employment Judge Cline recorded that the claim had been re-listed alongside the Respondent's own claim, but by the time of the 9 February 2023 hearing it was not referred to in the agreed bundle and was not mentioned by Mr Darren Butler, who represented the Claimant.
The judgment notes that Mr Butler did not ask for any award in favour of the Claimant at any point during the hearing. In those circumstances, the tribunal found it proportionate and consistent with the Overriding Objective to dismiss the Claimant's claim without further recourse to the parties or further use of tribunal resources. No monetary award was made on the Claimant's contract claim in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claimant's employer's contract claim was dismissed. The judgment records that the claim was not referred to in the agreed bundle or during the 9 February 2023 hearing, and no award was sought for it at that hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Overriding Objective
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.