Mr Deoraj Dwivedi v Hindu Cultural Resource Centre Sandwell — 2026

The claimant, employed on successive fixed-term contracts at the respondent Temple, was given notice of dismissal on or about 30 January 2024. The respondent's case was that he had been dismissed for conduct, namely retaining donations from worshippers in breach of duty. The claimant's case was that he had been dismissed because he had reached 68 years of age, and that a reference dated 19 April 2024 confirmed he had been required to retire on age grounds. The hearing took place over 26-30 January 2026 before Employment Judge Taylor sitting alone.

The Tribunal concluded that the reason for dismissal was unilateral retirement because of the claimant's age, and not misconduct. On the unfair dismissal claim, the respondent failed to prove it genuinely believed the claimant had committed gross misconduct or that misconduct was the reason for dismissal, applying the Burchell approach. On the wrongful dismissal claim, the Tribunal found the claimant had not committed gross misconduct, so there was no breach of contract justifying termination on less than statutory notice; the contractual notice period was 11 weeks, of which only 4 weeks were paid. On the age discrimination claim, the claimant proved facts from which the Tribunal could conclude discrimination had occurred, and the respondent did not show it had not discriminated; serving notice and dismissing on or about 30 January 2024 was less favourable treatment because of age.

All three claims were upheld. The available text sets out the liability findings but does not contain a quantified remedy breakdown (basic award, compensatory award, injury to feelings, or interest), and no total award figure is stated; the £105,707 figure noted by Layer 1 appears in the issues list as a reference to the statutory cap on the compensatory award, not as an award made.