Case 3200327/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Das v Boleyn Road Practice (a partnership) and 2 others — 2021
- Case reference
- 3200327/2021
- Decision date
- 15 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Brien Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr R Das
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr R Das appeared in person; the respondents did not attend and were not represented. The tribunal found that he had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded him a redundancy payment of £2,690.
It also found that the claimant was dismissed without adequate notice, amounting to a breach of contract, and awarded damages of £617.50.
In addition, the tribunal found that the respondents had failed to pay holiday pay due on termination. The unpaid holiday was identified as 6 days' pay, and the tribunal awarded £741 gross.
The tribunal held that the respondents were jointly and severally liable for those sums and ordered payment of the total of £4,048.50 by 29 September 2021.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £2,690. | Upheld | — | £2,690 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed without adequate notice in breach of contract and awarded damages of £617.50. | Upheld | — | £618 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondents had failed to pay untaken holiday pay due at termination, comprising 6 days' pay, and awarded £741 gross. | Upheld | — | £741 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,049
- 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.