Case 2602907/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Lane v Getir UK Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2602907/2022
- Decision date
- 17 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge I Omambala KC
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Lane
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Nottingham on 16 and 17 August 2023, Employment Judge I Omambala KC, sitting alone, dismissed Mr K Lane's claim for automatically unfair dismissal contrary to section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The extracted judgment records that claim as unsuccessful and dismissed, but does not set out further reasoning in the text provided.
The tribunal upheld Mr Lane's breach of contract claim. It ordered Getir UK Limited to pay £417.10 in wages due and £760 in accrued holiday pay, and added a 20% uplift of £235.42 because of the Respondent's failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievances. The total sum payable was £1,412.52.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was for automatically unfair dismissal contrary to section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The award comprised wages due of £417.10, accrued holiday pay of £760, and a 20% uplift of £235.42, making a total of £1,412.52. | Upheld | — | £1,413 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,413
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievances
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.