Case 2500076/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Njie Anene v BAM Entertainment Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500076/2024
- Decision date
- 17 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Appearances
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Njie Anene
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Sweeney, sitting alone at Newcastle Employment Tribunal on 17 April 2024, heard the claim with the Claimant in person and no attendance by the Respondent. The Tribunal found each of the Claimant's four claims well-founded and succeeding on liability and remedy.
The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay a redundancy payment of £1,819.68 under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996 (calculated on £454.92 gross weekly pay over four years' service), £69.69 gross for unlawful deduction of wages, £949.41 gross for holiday pay under regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998, and £1,534.20 in damages for breach of contract in respect of notice. The total sum ordered was £4,372.98.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days. The judgment text does not set out further factual findings or legal analysis beyond the statutory bases cited for each award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Awarded under s.163 Employment Rights Act 1996; calculated as £454.92 gross weekly pay x 4 years' service. | Upheld | — | £1,820 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross sum awarded. | Upheld | — | £70 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded under regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £949 |
| Breach of contract | Damages for failure to give or pay notice. | Upheld | — | £1,534 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,373
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998
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.