Case 6004875/2024 · Employment Tribunal
N Morokar v Aquesta Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6004875/2024
- Decision date
- 16 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McAvoy Newns
- Venue
- East London
Parties
2 namedClaimant
N Morokar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim against Aquesta Ltd was well founded and succeeded. It recorded that the claimant had unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, and said it was just and equitable to reduce the compensatory award by 10% on that basis.
The tribunal also found that the claimant contributed to her dismissal by reason of her blameworthy conduct. It therefore reduced both the basic award and the compensatory award by 25% for contributory conduct.
Separately, the tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract and that her claim for notice pay was well founded and succeeded. The written record is a liability judgment and does not set out any final monetary figures.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well founded and said the claimant unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice, justifying a 10% reduction in the compensatory award. It also found contributory conduct, justifying a 25% reduction to the basic award and compensatory award. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract and that her claim for notice pay was well founded and succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
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.