Case 1403128/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Z Iqbal v Core Security (midlands) Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1403128/2018
- Decision date
- 2 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hargrove Representation
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Z Iqbal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 12 June 2019 before Employment Judge Hargrove in Southampton, the tribunal dealt with the claimant's application for reconsideration of the earlier judgment that had rejected the claims in his absence. The tribunal set aside that earlier judgment and gave leave, if necessary, for the claimant to amend his claim to bring a breach of contract claim in respect of non-payment of wages.
The tribunal then held that the claimant's breach of contract claim in respect of expenses, brought under Regulation 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, and his claim for unlawful deduction from wages under sections 13 and 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, were not well founded and were dismissed. No monetary award was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim in respect of expenses, brought under Regulation 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim brought under sections 13 and 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.