Case 1302278/2019 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Mr Muhammad Abid — 2020
- Case reference
- 1302278/2019
- Decision date
- 10 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Perry, sitting alone at Birmingham on 10 February 2020, recorded an agreed judgment between the parties. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from the claimant’s wages in the gross sum of £5,738.48, after taking into account the amount allowed for provision of living accommodation.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It awarded £584.17 gross in respect of that claim, calculated as a basic award of £438.13 plus two weeks’ loss of earnings of £146.04. The judgment does not set out further reasons beyond the agreed findings and the figures awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records an agreed finding that the respondent made an unlawful deduction from the claimant’s wages in the gross sum of £5,738.48, after taking into account the amount allowed for provision of living accommodation. | Upheld | — | £5,738 |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awards £584.17 gross compensation, made up of a basic award of £438.13 and two weeks’ loss of earnings of £146.04. | Upheld | — | £584 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,323
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £438
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £146
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.