Case 3306795/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Rommer, Solicitor. For the First v Small and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 3306795/2021
- Decision date
- 7 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Forde Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr D Rommer, Solicitor. For the First
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Watford, Employment Judge Forde decided claims brought by Mr J H Quiquijana Titirico against Small and Beautiful Ltd and Skender Syka. The claimant succeeded in his automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.104(1)(b) ERA 1996, his claim for a detriment for a minimum wage reason under s.23 NMWA 1998, his direct race discrimination claim under s.13 Equality Act 2010, his unlawful deduction of wages claim, his wrongful dismissal claim, his claim for unpaid holiday pay, his claim for failure to provide written particulars or itemised pay statements, and his claim for compensation under s.11(2)(b) NMWA 1998.
The claimant did not succeed on the alternative automatic unfair dismissal claim recorded in the judgment as s.104(a) ERA 1996, and the victimisation claim under s.27 Equality Act 2010 was not founded. The direct race discrimination claim succeeded against both respondents.
The judgment also records that the First Respondent acted unreasonably in failing to comply with its obligations in respect of the Acas Code, so the claimant's award was subject to a 25% uplift. The extracted text does not state the monetary figures for any individual head of loss or the total award.
Claims and outcomes
10 findings recordedThis 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | Victimisation contrary to s.27 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unlawful deduction of wages claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Wrongful dismissal claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for unpaid holiday pay. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Claim in respect of failure to provide written particulars or itemised pay statements. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Claim for compensation in accordance with s.11(2)(b) NMWA 1998 against the First Respondent. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal pursuant to s.104(1)(b) ERA 1996 against the First Respondent. | Upheld | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.104(1)(b) ERA 1996
- s.104(a) ERA 1996
- s.23 NMWA 1998
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.11(2)(b) NMWA 1998
- Acas Code uplift
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.