Case 3300813/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A. Verma v Kingsacre Riverside Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3300813/2021
- Decision date
- 20 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McNeill QC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A. Verma
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 20 October 2021, Employment Judge McNeill QC, sitting alone, amended the respondent's name by consent to Kingsacre Riverside Limited. The tribunal upheld the claimant's redundancy payment claim by consent in the sum of £7,421.88. It also recorded that the respondent was liable to pay a further £3,278.12, calculated net of tax and employee national insurance, comprising £1,470 net for a payment in lieu of annual leave and £1,808.12 for unauthorised deductions, making a total payable of £10,700 within 14 days.
No separate finding was made on the unfair dismissal claim. After discussion, the claimant confirmed that he did not require a tribunal finding on that claim because he had not sustained financial loss following dismissal and because any basic award would have been reduced to zero by reason of the redundancy payment under section 122(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Upheld by consent in the sum of £7,421.88. | Upheld | — | £7,422 |
| Holiday pay | Included within the further sum of £3,278.12 net of tax and employee national insurance; recorded as £1,470 net in respect of a payment in lieu of annual leave. | Upheld | — | £1,470 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Included within the further sum of £3,278.12 net of tax and employee national insurance; recorded as £1,808.12 in respect of unauthorised deductions. | Upheld | — | £1,808 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,700
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.122(4) ERA 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.