Case 1304196/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr Mohammed Imran Zaman and HC Hotel Operations Ltd (Dissolved) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1304196/2018
- Decision date
- 2 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lloyd Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondents did not attend the hearing. Pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, Employment Judge Lloyd determined the case on the material before the tribunal and found that the claimant had proven that the respondents unlawfully failed to pay wages due to her.
The tribunal awarded £2,287.13 gross, made up of £250.56 for shifts totalling 32 hours worked in June-July 2018, £1,084.45 for shifts worked in May-June 2018, £701.56 for unpaid accrued holiday of 11.2 days, £125.28 for two night shifts in lieu totalling 16 hours, and £125.28 for one week's pay in hand.
The tribunal ordered the respondents to pay the full sum to the claimant. It recorded that the second respondent was a dissolved company and that the first respondent, as the sole remaining respondent, was jointly liable for payment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondents had unlawfully not paid wages due to the claimant, in a gross sum of £2,287.13, made up of unpaid shifts, unpaid accrued holiday pay, two night shifts in lieu, and one week's pay in hand. | Upheld | — | £2,287 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,287
- 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.