Case 1800004/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Howard Sagi v Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1800004/2022
- Decision date
- 16 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jaleel Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Howard Sagi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal amended the name of the Respondent to Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster). The Claimant, Mr Howard Sagi, appeared in person and the Respondent was represented by Mr Hodgson, solicitor.
The tribunal found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim for reimbursement of bond money, relying on Article 5 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. That claim was dismissed.
The complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. The judgment records no monetary award or remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal recorded that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim for reimbursement of bond money under Article 5 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, and dismissed that claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Article 5 of The Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.