Case 3204765/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Sood v Oakland Central Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3204765/2022
- Decision date
- 15 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reid Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that it had jurisdiction under Article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 to hear the claimant's breach of contract claim for the termination payment under clause 3.1 of the Settlement Agreement dated 1 March 2022. The judgment identifies the claim as being for up to a maximum of £25,000, but the extracted text does not set out any substantive determination of that claim.
The same judgment states that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim and holiday pay claim were dismissed on withdrawal. The extracted text refers to separate orders, and it does not record any award or other monetary remedy. No discrimination, whistleblowing, redundancy, or wages findings are set out in the text provided.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the Tribunal has jurisdiction under Article 3 of the ETs Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 to hear the claimant's breach of contract claim for the termination payment under clause 3.1 of the Settlement Agreement dated 1 March 2022, up to a maximum of £25,000. The extracted text does not state the substantive outcome of that claim. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that this claim was dismissed on withdrawal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that this claim was dismissed on withdrawal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- ETs Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, Article 3
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.