Case 1806846/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Shuhdi Ali v James Thorp and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 1806846/2020
- Decision date
- 3 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Shuhdi Ali
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Housego, sitting at Leeds by CVP on 3 August 2021, found that the respondents employed Shuhdi Ali and made unlawful deductions from his pay within s.13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal identified the unpaid salary as totalling £21,250 and ordered the respondents to pay that sum to the claimant.
The tribunal also found that the respondents did not provide a statutory statement of principal terms and conditions of employment. In consequence, and by reason of s.38 of the Employment Act 2002, it ordered two weeks' pay, assessed at £1,153.84. The respondents were held jointly and severally liable, and the award was to be paid gross, with tax and national insurance matters for the claimant to deal with HMRC.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondents employed the claimant and made deductions from his pay contrary to s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996. The deduction was the failure to pay salary totalling £21,250. | Upheld | — | £21,250 |
| Other | The tribunal found that the respondents did not provide a statutory statement of principal terms and conditions of employment and made an award of two weeks' pay under s.38 Employment Act 2002. The sum ordered for this award was £1,153.84. | Upheld | — | £1,154 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £22,404
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.