Case 1302337/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Akaal Construction Ltd (in creditors voluntary liquidation) — 2019
- Case reference
- 1302337/2019
- Decision date
- 26 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Birmingham on 18 September 2019, Employment Judge Self found that Miss B Ali’s claims for unpaid wages, holiday pay, and breach of section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 were well-founded. The judgment records that Akaal Construction Limited had paid the sums due and owing on 26 June 2019, so no further award was made on any of those heads.
The tribunal also refused the claimant’s application to amend the claim to add unfair dismissal. The judgment does not record any monetary award, panel members, or other remedy beyond the decision that no further award was due.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim for unpaid wages well-founded, but recorded that the respondent had paid the sums due and owing on 26 June 2019, so no further award was made. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the holiday pay claim well-founded, but recorded that the respondent had paid the sums due and owing on 26 June 2019, so no further award was made. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Claim treated as the complaint of breach of section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. The tribunal found it well-founded, but recorded that the respondent had paid the sums due and owing on 26 June 2019, so no further award was made. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 38 of the Employment Act 2002
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.