Case 2601068/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Dhami v Empyrean Prints & Fabrics Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2601068/2022
- Decision date
- 21 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Dhami
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was determined under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge proceeded to determine the claim, or parts of it, on the papers. The judgment is dated 21 July 2022 and records that the claim was issued in the Midlands East Employment Tribunal on 25 April 2022.
The tribunal found that Mr K Dhami had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It ordered the respondent, Empyrean Prints & Fabrics Limited, to pay damages of £1,425.60 gross for that claim. The tribunal also found that he was dismissed by reason of redundancy and held that he was entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,264.
The judgment further records that the holiday entitlement claim was dismissed because the claimant had withdrawn it. The future hearings were cancelled. The monetary awards recorded in the judgment total £4,689.60.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £1,425.60 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,426 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,264. | Upheld | — | £3,264 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records that the holiday entitlement claim was dismissed because the claimant had withdrawn it. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,690
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21, Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.