Case 2602559/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr MB Choi v Rehoboth 24 Healthcare Solutions Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2602559/2019
- Decision date
- 5 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr MB Choi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in the case of Mr MB Choi v Rehoboth 24 Healthcare Solutions Ltd. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered the respondent to pay damages of £1,600.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,600. A further claim for unpaid expenses was upheld: the tribunal described this as a breach of contract of employment or connected with employment, and ordered payment of £727.18.
The hearing listed for 13 January 2020 was cancelled. The judgment records no other findings, and no separate statutory unfair dismissal award, injury to feelings award, or interest figure was stated in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £1,600. | Upheld | — | £1,600 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,600. | Upheld | — | £1,600 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant’s expenses, described as a breach of contract of employment or connected with his employment, and ordered payment of £727.18. | Upheld | — | £727 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,927
- across all upheld claims
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.