Case 3334324/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Farjani v Denave Europe Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3334324/2018
- Decision date
- 15 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Farjani
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent's application to present a response out of time was refused. The tribunal nevertheless permitted the respondent to participate in the remedy hearing by giving evidence and cross-examining the claimant.
The tribunal found that Mr N Farjani had been unfairly dismissed contrary to section 104(1)(b), read together with section 104(4)(d) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The judgment records a compensatory award of £1,200 for that unfair dismissal finding.
The tribunal also found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant in lieu of entitlement to annual leave. It ordered payment of £330 for that holiday pay entitlement. The total monetary award recorded by the judgment was £1,530.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed contrary to section 104(1)(b), read together with section 104(4)(d) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £1,200 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant in lieu of entitlement to annual leave. | Upheld | — | £330 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,530
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,200
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 104(1)(b) read together with section 104(4)(d) Working Time Regulations 1998
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.