Case 1806610/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mirza, in person and for Miss Heh v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 1806610/2022
- Decision date
- 16 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
- Panel members
- Mr D Wilks, Mr J Howarth
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Mirza, in person and for Miss Heh
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal sitting in Leeds before Employment Judge JM Wade and lay members Mr D Wilks and Mr J Howarth heard the claims on 6 to 7 and 9 to 10 and 13 to 14 November 2023, and gave judgment on 16 November 2023. It held that the claimants' unfair dismissal complaints were not well founded and that their protected disclosure detriment complaints were not well founded.
The first claimant's unlawful deduction from wages complaint was dismissed. The second claimant's unlawful deduction from wages complaint succeeded, and the respondent was ordered to pay him the gross sum of £1,167.24. The Tribunal also recorded that the recoupment regulations did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Both claimants' unfair dismissal complaints were held not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Both claimants' protected disclosure detriment complaints were held not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The first claimant's unlawful deduction from wages complaint was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The second claimant's unlawful deduction from wages complaint succeeded; the respondent was ordered to pay him the gross sum of £1,167.24. | Upheld | — | £1,167 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,167
- 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.