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 namedClaimant
Ms. L. Naim
Respondent
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 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award £5,549.61 plus compensatory award £12,918.40. Recoupment applies (prescribed element £12,618.40). Reason for dismissal declared as branch manager wishing to employ a friend in the claimant's position. | Upheld | — | £18,468 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay breach of contract well-founded but no separate damages awarded given the compensatory award above. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Failure to provide written statement of reasons for dismissal under s.92 ERA 1996; award of two weeks' gross pay under s.93 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £673 |
| Other | Failure to provide written statement of employment particulars under s.38 Employment Act 2002; just and equitable to award four weeks' gross pay. | Upheld | — | £1,345 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,486
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £5,550
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £12,918
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.92 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.93 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996
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.