Case 1601658/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Erfan v Top European Food Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1601658/2022
- Decision date
- 24 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brace Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Erfan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was determined under rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. On that basis, the Employment Judge made findings on the paper material and upheld the monetary claims brought by Mr A Erfan against Top European Food Ltd.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £1,799.80 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and awarded £152.00 in damages for that claim.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £534.85. The total sum payable to the claimant was £2,486.65. The judgment also records that the claimant is responsible for any tax and employee national insurance contributions owed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment; the respondent was found to have made unauthorised deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £1,800 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages. | Upheld | — | £152 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £535 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,487
- 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.