Case 2602941/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Qadir v Platinum Car Care Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2602941/2022
- Decision date
- 5 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer Appearances
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Qadir
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningPlatinum Car Care Limited did not file a response on time, or at all by the date of the full merits hearing. The tribunal therefore entered judgment for Mr Qadir under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £1,476.92 and a compensatory award of £19,114.13. The compensatory award was said to comprise £12,264.13 for past losses, £6,350.00 for 26 weeks' future losses, and £500 for loss of statutory rights.
The tribunal also recorded that Mr Qadir had not been given written particulars of employment and made an additional award of £1,476.92 under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, described as the higher amount of four weeks' pay. The total payable by the respondent was £22,067.97.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Rule 21 default judgment; the tribunal awarded a basic award of £1,476.92 and a compensatory award of £19,114.13. The judgment also records an additional award of £1,476.92 under section 38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written particulars. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £22,068
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,477
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £19,114
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.