Case 3300115/2021 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Kumar v Wizard Consultancy Services Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) — 2021

Case reference: 3300115/2021
Decision date: 30 April 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Hyams Appearances

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Kumar v Wizard Consultancy Services Ltd (in voluntary liquidation)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal gave judgment under Rule 21 in the respondent's absence. It found that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed.

For remedy, the tribunal awarded the claimant a basic award of two weeks' pay under section 119 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, in the sum of £1,076. No compensatory award for unfair dismissal was set out in the judgment.

The tribunal also found that the respondent owed the claimant £25,164.60 gross in unpaid wages within the meaning of section 27 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and £3,978.95 gross in accrued holiday pay.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The judgment states only a basic award for unfair dismissal; no compensatory award is identified.	Upheld	—	£1,076
Unlawful deduction from wages	Award expressed as unpaid wages gross, before deductions for income tax and national insurance contributions.	Upheld	—	£25,165
Holiday pay	Award expressed as accrued holiday pay gross.	Upheld	—	£3,979

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £30,220; across all upheld claims
Basic award: £1,076; statutory, unfair dismissal

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.