Case 3202649/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Sheehan v Warley Park Ltd / Muhibur Rahman — 2021
- Case reference
- 3202649/2020
- Decision date
- 30 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Peter Wilkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Sheehan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely by Cloud Video Platform on 30 July 2021 before Employment Judge Peter Wilkinson. The claimant, Mr M Sheehan, appeared in person and the respondent, Warley Park Ltd / Muhibur Rahman, was represented by Mr Muhibur Rahman in person.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim. The judgment states that the claim under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well-founded.
The claimant’s wrongful dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal held the respondent liable for £8,976.79 in respect of contractual notice.
The claimant’s claim for unlawful deduction from wages in respect of holiday pay was allowed by agreement. The tribunal held the respondent liable for £175.40 for underpayment of holiday pay. The respondent indicated that the above sums would be paid within three months.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was found not well-founded under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Allowed; the tribunal ordered payment of contractual notice in this amount. | Upheld | — | £8,977 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Allowed by agreement in respect of holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £175 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,152
- 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.