Case 2405033/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Mohammad Miah v Thomas Burgess t/a Toms Motors — 2023

Case reference: 2405033/2022
Decision date: 23 March 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Newstead Taylor

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr Mohammad Miah

Respondent

Thomas Burgess t/a Toms Motors

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At Manchester on 9-10 March 2023, Employment Judge Newstead Taylor sat alone and heard the case between Mr Mohammad Miah and Thomas Burgess t/a Toms Motors. By agreement, the respondent's name was amended to Thomas Burgess t/a Toms Motors.

The tribunal found that Mr Miah's claim that he had been constructively unfairly dismissed was well founded and succeeded. The written record does not set out the factual or legal reasons for that conclusion; it records only that reasons were given orally at the hearing.

No monetary award is recorded in the judgment text provided. The judgment also states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Constructive dismissal	The written record states that the claimant's claim that he was constructively unfairly dismissed was well founded and succeeded. It does not record any monetary award, and it notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing rather than in written reasons.	Upheld	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.