Case 3320666/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Krishnan v Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3320666/2021
- Decision date
- 29 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dobbie
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Krishnan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Cambridge Employment Tribunal on 20 October 2022 before Employment Judge Dobbie sitting without members. The Claimant, Mr N Krishnan, appeared in person and the Respondent, Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Ltd, was represented by counsel.
The tribunal dismissed the Claimant's claim for unlawful deduction from wages. It also dismissed the Claimant's claim for breach of contract. The judgment text does not set out written reasons, stating that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
The judgment also records that the Respondent's contract claim was withdrawn, but not dismissed on withdrawal, because the Respondent wished to reserve its right to pursue the claim in the civil courts.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The Respondent's contract claim was withdrawn, but not dismissed on withdrawal, so that the Respondent could reserve its right to pursue the claim in the civil courts. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.