Case 1302992/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the First v Mr M Arman T/a Shahzalal Takeaway — 2018
- Case reference
- 1302992/2018
- Decision date
- 7 February 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self Signed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the First
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims arising from his work as a takeaway delivery driver for the respondent. The tribunal found that employment started on 1 August 2017 and ended on 7 February 2018, when the business ceased trading. The respondent entered no response and did not appear at the hearing. The claimant had suggested in the claim form that the dismissal was automatically unfair because he had asserted a statutory right, but he did not pursue that point at the hearing.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the claimant did not have two years' continuous service and none of the statutory exemptions applied. The tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to deal with that claim. It accepted the claimant's evidence that he worked until the premises shut down without warning and that he could not contact or locate the owner afterwards.
The tribunal upheld the wrongful dismissal claim and awarded one week's notice pay of £289.42 net. It also upheld the unlawful deduction from wages claim, accepting the claimant's evidence that he should have been paid £7,814.34 net over 27 weeks but had only received £750, leaving £7,064.34 due. Holiday pay was awarded at £618.45 net under the Working Time Regulations 1998.
On the contractual payment issue, the tribunal accepted that £2 per delivery had been agreed but said there was no clear evidence of the number of deliveries. Doing the best it could with the material available, it estimated 40 deliveries per week, producing an award of £1,890 net. The tribunal also awarded £1,157.68 under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written particulars, describing that figure as four weeks' net pay. On reconsideration, the tribunal confirmed the section 38 award and corrected the delivery-payment element as part of the final total of £11,019.89.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant did not have two years' service and no statutory exemption applied; the tribunal found the employment ended when the business ceased trading. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Awarded one week's notice pay, calculated on the claimant's evidence of £7.50 per hour for 44 hours a week and treated as a net sum. | Upheld | — | £289 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal accepted that the claimant had only been paid £750 over 27 weeks and held that the remaining wages were unlawfully deducted on a net basis. | Upheld | — | £7,064 |
| Breach of contract | Award for contractual delivery payments. The tribunal accepted that £2 per delivery was agreed and, on the evidence available, estimated 40 deliveries per week for 27 weeks. | Upheld | — | £1,890 |
| Working time regulations | Holiday pay was awarded under the Working Time Regulations 1998, based on 15 days' holiday entitlement and the prevailing daily rate. | Upheld | — | £618 |
| Other | Award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written particulars of employment; the tribunal said this reflected four weeks' net pay. | Upheld |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,020
- 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.