Case 1303164/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Al Obaidi v HD Birmingham Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1303164/2022
- Decision date
- 19 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Boyle Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham ET
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Al Obaidi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal first dealt with limitation on the wages claim and held that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the claim within the prescribed time limit. It found that the claim was presented within a further period that it considered reasonable, so the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear it.
On the merits, the tribunal found that HD Birmingham Ltd made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay the claimant the full amount due for July 2020 and January 2022. It ordered the respondent to pay £1,447.61, described in the judgment as the gross sum deducted.
The tribunal also held that the claim for a statutory redundancy payment was well-founded. It ordered the respondent to pay £758.64. No other remedy heads were addressed in the judgment, and the written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the wages claim within the prescribed time limit, and that it was presented within a further reasonable period. It found an unauthorised deduction from wages for July 2020 and January 2022. | Upheld | — | £1,448 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claim for a statutory redundancy payment was well-founded and ordered payment of the stated sum. | Upheld | — | £759 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,206
- 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.