Case 3307300/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Cardinal Security Ltd (in administration) and Professional Witnesses Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3307300/2018
- Decision date
- 25 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 6 March 2020, Employment Judge Anstis heard the claims of Mr P Thapa, Mr D Magar, Mr P Gurang, Mr P Kurambang and Mr B Dewan against Cardinal Security Limited (in administration) and Professional Witnesses Limited. The first respondent did not attend or represent itself. The tribunal held that each claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment from Cardinal Security Limited, in the amounts stated in the judgment: Mr P Thapa £3,667.50, Mr D Magar £2,693.52, Mr P Gurang £2,477.26, Mr P Kurambang £2,934.00 and Mr B Dewan £4,401.00.
The tribunal also held that Mr P Thapa and Mr B Dewan were entitled to holiday pay from Cardinal Security Limited, in the amounts of £316.76 and £775.35 respectively. The claims against Professional Witnesses Limited were dismissed on withdrawal. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal held that the claimants were entitled to redundancy payments from Cardinal Security Limited (in administration). The individual amounts recorded were: Mr P Thapa £3,667.50; Mr D Magar £2,693.52; Mr P Gurang £2,477.26; Mr P Kurambang £2,934.00; and Mr B Dewan £4,401.00. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held that Mr P Thapa and Mr B Dewan were entitled to holiday pay from Cardinal Security Limited (in administration). The amounts recorded were: Mr P Thapa £316.76 and Mr B Dewan £775.35. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The claims against Professional Witnesses Limited were dismissed on withdrawal. The judgment does not specify separate substantive claim types for those claims in the extracted text. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,265
- across all upheld claims
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.