Case 3305398/2020 · Employment Tribunal
The claimant was represented by her son Mr Amlani For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3305398/2020
- Decision date
- 10 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Allen Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
The claimant was represented by her son Mr Amlani For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Watford via CVP on 5 April 2022 before Employment Judge Allen. The claimant was represented by her son, Mr Amlani, and the respondent was represented by Mr Gray-Jones of counsel.
The written judgment records that all of the claimant's claims filed with the tribunal on 10 May 2020 were not well founded and were dismissed. No separate findings or reasoning are set out in the written record beyond that final disposal.
The judgment also states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. The public record therefore contains no monetary award and no further breakdown of the tribunal's reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not list each claim individually; this claim type is taken from the case listing categories. The written judgment states only that all claims filed on 10 May 2020 were not well founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not list each claim individually; this claim type is taken from the case listing categories. The written judgment states only that all claims filed on 10 May 2020 were not well founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not list each claim individually; this claim type is taken from the case listing categories. The written judgment states only that all claims filed on 10 May 2020 were not well founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not list each claim individually; this claim type is taken from the case listing categories. The written judgment states only that all claims filed on 10 May 2020 were not well founded and were dismissed. | 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.