Case 2200522/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Bahareh Azizi v Lyad Abualkibash Fyre Group Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2200522/2024
- Decision date
- 16 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anthony REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Bahareh Azizi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the claim by CVP on 11 July 2024 before Employment Judge Anthony, sitting alone. The claimant appeared in person; the respondent did not attend. The tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded, holding that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages for the period 02/11/2023 to 07/12/2023, and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,116.00, with the claimant responsible for income tax and National Insurance.
The tribunal further ordered the respondent to pay the claimant a net sum of £592.96 in respect of bank loan interest, and a net sum of £5.25 in respect of printing costs, in each case to compensate her for financial loss attributable to the unauthorised deduction from wages pursuant to section 24(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing; written reasons will not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's standard note.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Single claim of unauthorised deductions from wages for the period 02/11/2023 to 07/12/2023, found well-founded. Award comprises £1,116.00 gross (wages), £592.96 net (bank loan interest) and £5.25 net (printing cost), the latter two awarded as financial loss under s.24(2) ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £1,714 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,714
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 24(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.