Case 1600797/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Y Radwan v Be Fit Cardiff Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1600797/2019
- Decision date
- 4 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jenkin Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Y Radwan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 response form. Employment Judge Jenkin said there was sufficient material before the tribunal to determine the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment records an award for unpaid wages in the sum of £1,035.00. The tribunal did not set out any separate findings of fact beyond the default judgment basis, and it did not identify any additional heads of claim or any split between separate remedies.
The tribunal also stated that the claimant is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions that may be due on the unpaid wages award. The judgment was dated 27 January 2020 and sent to the parties on 4 February 2020.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that, in the absence of an ET3 response and on the material available under Rule 21, the tribunal awarded unpaid wages of £1,035.00. It also states that the claimant is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions due on the sum. | Upheld | — | £1,035 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,035
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.