Case 3313164/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Kostakakis v Charles Briggs Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3313164/2023
- Decision date
- 27 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reed Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Kostakakis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr D Kostakakis, brought complaints against Charles Briggs Ltd that were heard by Employment Judge Reed at Cambridge by video on 10 and 11 July 2024. The written judgment records that the unfair dismissal complaint was not well founded and that the claimant was fairly dismissed.
The tribunal also rejected the breach of contract claim in relation to notice pay, held that the claimant was not entitled to a redundancy payment, and rejected the complaint relating to unauthorised payments to an employer. The judgment gives the outcomes only and does not set out written reasons, stating that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
No monetary award was made. The record states that written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was fair and the complaint was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim was brought in relation to notice pay and was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal held that the claimant was not entitled to a redundancy payment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records a complaint relating to unauthorised payments to an employer, which was not well founded. | 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.