Case 3200587/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. L. Naim v KASH PH Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 3200587/2025
- Decision date
- 21 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- London East Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedMs. L. Naim
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningDistrict Judge Ross, sitting as an Employment Judge at the London East Hearing Centre on 21 January 2026, determined that the claimant Ms L Naim had been unfairly dismissed by KASH PH Limited. The claimant was represented by her son Mr T Naim and the respondent by Mr B Acharya (Area Manager) supported by Mr J Rana as a McKenzie Friend.
The Tribunal awarded a basic award of £5,549.61 and a compensatory award of £12,918.40 for unfair dismissal, with the recoupment regulations applying (prescribed element £12,618.40 for the period 10 March 2025 to 21 January 2026). The breach of contract claim in relation to notice pay was well-founded but no additional damages were awarded given the compensatory award.
The Tribunal found the respondent had unreasonably failed to provide a written statement under section 92 ERA 1996, declared that the reason for dismissal was that the respondent's branch manager wished to employ a friend in the claimant's position, and awarded two weeks' gross pay (£672.68) under section 93. It also found the respondent in breach of its duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars and awarded four weeks' gross pay (£1,345.36) under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. Reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Upheld | — | £18,468 |
| Breach of contract | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Upheld | — | £673 |
| Other | Upheld | — | £1,345 |
Legal tests applied
4 referencesRemedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,486
- Basic award
- £5,550
- Compensatory award
- £12,918
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.