Case 1303028/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr A Mohamed, Solicitor — 2024
- Case reference
- 1303028/2023
- Decision date
- 6 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hughes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing held by CVP on 7 February and 4 September 2024, Employment Judge Hughes determined the claimant's complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages. The tribunal found that the complaint was not well-founded and dismissed it.
The decision record also states that the claimant was a disabled person at the material time. However, the claimant's application to amend the case to add complaints of disability discrimination was not permitted, so no discrimination claim was admitted for determination on the merits.
The judgment was issued on 6 September 2024 and notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing, with written reasons to be provided only if requested in accordance with the tribunal's standard practice. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal dismissed the complaint as not well-founded. The same decision record states that the claimant was a disabled person at the material time, but his application to amend to add complaints of disability discrimination was not permitted. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.