Case 3313572/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Kalkan (in person) For the v Miss Barlay (consultant) — 2022

Case reference: 3313572/2021
Decision date: 3 October 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Cowen Appearances
Venue: Watford T r i b u n a l

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr Kalkan (in person) For the

Respondent

Miss Barlay (consultant)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the Watford tribunal hearing on 28, 29 and 30 September 2022 before Employment Judge Cowen, the tribunal ordered TFC Holdings London Limited to pay Mr Kalkan £50,482 in respect of unfair dismissal, £1,445.72 in respect of s.8 ERA 1996, and £2,891.44 in respect of breach of contract.

The tribunal dismissed Mr Kalkan's claims for holiday pay and under s.44 ERA 1996. The extracted judgment sets out the final monetary awards and dismissals, but it does not include further reasoning or a split of the unfair dismissal award into basic, compensatory, interest, or other components.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

This 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
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal ordered payment of £50,482 in respect of unfair dismissal.	Upheld	—	£50,482
Other	The judgment records an award of £1,445.72 in respect of s.8 ERA 1996; the extracted text does not further specify the factual basis of this head of claim.	Upheld	—	£1,446
Breach of contract	The tribunal awarded £2,891.44 in respect of breach of contract.	Upheld	—	£2,891
Holiday pay	The claim for holiday pay was dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	The judgment dismisses the claim under s.44 ERA 1996; the extracted text does not set out further reasons.	Dismissed	—	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £54,819; across all upheld claims

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.