Case 1404113/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr H Hujdurovic, Director — 2020
- Case reference
- 1404113/2019
- Decision date
- 12 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a salaried sous chef, brought a monetary claim for unlawful deduction from wages after Elfordleigh Limited deducted his August 2019 pay from his final wages. The hearing was held remotely on 5 August 2020 before Employment Judge N J Roper. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and from the respondent's director, Mr H Hujdurovic, and considered the written contract and the claimant's timesheets.
The tribunal found that the claimant was paid a fixed salary throughout his employment, even though his hours varied week to week and he completed weekly timesheets. The respondent argued that clause 18 of the contract allowed it to recover alleged overpayments because the claimant had worked fewer than 40 hours a week on average and had overclaimed hours and holiday. The tribunal did not accept that analysis as establishing an overpayment of salary falling within the contractual deduction clause.
The parties agreed that the claimant had taken one day of holiday above his pro rata entitlement and that £88 could properly be deducted for that overpaid holiday. The tribunal therefore held that the remaining £627 deducted from the claimant's final pay was unlawful under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and ordered the respondent to pay that gross sum.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that £88 of the deduction was authorised as overpaid holiday pay, but the remaining £627 was an unlawful deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £627 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £627
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.