Case 2600001/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Vijay Iqbal v AJKM Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2600001/2024
- Decision date
- 17 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McTigue
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Vijay Iqbal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge McTigue, sitting alone at Nottingham on 17 October 2024, found that Mr Vijay Iqbal's complaint of unfair dismissal was well founded and succeeded. The tribunal also found that the complaint of breach of contract was well founded and succeeded.
The respondent did not attend and was not represented. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant within 14 days of the judgment being sent to the parties. The award comprised a basic award of £11,010.90, a compensatory award of £22,453.60, and damages for breach of contract of £4,303.56.
The judgment records that these were the actual sums payable to the claimant after any deductions or uplifts had been applied. The total amount due was £37,786.06.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the complaint well founded and awarded a basic award of £11,010.90 and a compensatory award of £22,453.60. | Upheld | — | £33,465 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the complaint well founded and awarded damages for breach of contract of £4,303.56. | Upheld | — | £4,304 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £37,786
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £11,011
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £22,454
- 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.