Case 6006272/2025 · Employment Tribunal
G Braha v Chatloop Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6006272/2025
- Decision date
- 23 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
G Braha
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal gave judgment under Rule 22. It found that the claimant's breach of contract complaint in relation to notice pay was well-founded and that the holiday pay complaint was also well-founded.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and that the respondent had failed to pay the redundancy payment due. It also found that the unfair dismissal complaint was well-founded and that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. Remedy was left to be determined at a later remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment identifies this as breach of contract in relation to notice pay. Remedy was deferred to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the holiday pay complaint was well-founded. Remedy was deferred to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and that the complaint about failure to pay the redundancy payment due was well-founded. Remedy was deferred to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal complaint was well-founded and that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. Remedy was deferred to a later hearing. | 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.