Case 2201039/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Basim Galal v Project Re Ltd. (previously known as Glife Food Ltd. and Seasons Re Ltd.) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2201039/2022
- Decision date
- 5 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Basim Galal
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not enter a response. The tribunal therefore decided the claims on the papers under Rule 21, without a hearing, after considering the ET1. The judgment records that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to award compensation for stress and anxiety, and did not award legal costs because evidence and a breakdown of the exact sums attributable to losses compliant with section 24(2) of the Employment Rights Act would be required.
On the substantive claims, the tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages by failing to pay arrears of pay. It ordered payment of the gross sum of £3,333.00 in respect of that deduction. It also found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of holiday pay and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,315.25.
The judgment does not record any additional remedy heads beyond those gross wage awards. The bottom-line total recorded from the two upheld deductions is £4,648.25 gross.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages described as arrears of pay and ordered the respondent to pay £3,333.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £3,333 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of holiday pay and ordered the respondent to pay £1,315.25 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,315 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,648
- 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.