Mr F Haji Khani v Brake Bros Limited — 2025

Case reference: 3300603/2024
Decision date: 3 January 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Partington Representation
Venue: Watford

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr F Haji Khani

Respondent

Brake Bros Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal found that the claimant's complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay was well-founded. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £2,175.28 as damages for breach of contract.

The Tribunal found that the claimant's separate complaint of breach of contract in relation to not following the respondent's disciplinary policy was not well-founded. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment does not set out further reasoning.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Breach of contract	The complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay was well-founded.	Upheld	—	£2,175
Breach of contract	The complaint of breach of contract in relation to not following the respondent's disciplinary policy was not well-founded.	Dismissed	—	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £2,175; across all upheld claims

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.