Case 3305005/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Singh v MASKS Hospitality Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3305005/2022
- Decision date
- 15 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McTigue
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr I Middleton, Mr S Bury
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Singh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case in Watford on 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 October 2023 before Employment Judge McTigue, sitting with Mr I Middleton and Mr S Bury. The claimant was represented by Mr R Downey, Counsel, and the respondent by Mr E McFarlane, Consultant. The judgment records that the tribunal gave its reasons orally at the hearing, so no written reasons were provided in the decision record.
The tribunal dismissed all of the claims before it. It found that the claims of unfair dismissal, direct age discrimination, breach of contract, failure to pay holiday pay accrued but not taken on termination of employment, failure to provide written particulars of employment, and failure to provide written reasons for dismissal were each not well founded. No remedy or monetary award was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment refers to this as a claim of direct age discrimination. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment refers to failure to pay holiday pay accrued but not taken on termination of employment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim for failure to provide written particulars of employment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim for failure to provide written reasons for dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.