Case 6007726/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Cheekhoory v Arms Hospitality Ltd t/a Bridge Arms (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) — 2026
- Case reference
- 6007726/2024
- Decision date
- 25 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leith Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Cheekhoory
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaint of direct race discrimination. No reasons are set out in the written record, because the judgment was given orally at the hearing and written reasons were not provided.
The remaining claims succeeded. The tribunal found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant for accrued but untaken annual leave on termination of employment, and ordered payment of the net sum of £1,232 for that holiday entitlement. It also found that unauthorised deductions were made from the claimant's wages throughout his employment, and ordered payment of £1,886.18 representing the sum deducted.
The tribunal further found that the respondent breached contract by dismissing the claimant without notice, awarding £560 as damages for that breach. It also found a failure to provide the claimant with a statement of terms and ordered £2,334.08 in respect of that failure. The total monetary award recorded in the judgment is £6,012.26.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay for accrued but untaken annual leave on termination. | Upheld | — | £1,232 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages throughout employment. | Upheld | — | £1,886 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal without notice. | Upheld | — | £560 |
| Other | Failure to provide a statement of terms. | Upheld | — | £2,334 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,012
- across all upheld claims
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.