Case 2201537/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Mr M Rashid v Superdrug Stores plc, trading as Savers — 2021

Case reference: 2201537/2021
Decision date: 29 January 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Palca
Venue: London Central

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr M Rashid

Respondent

Superdrug Stores plc, trading as Savers

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr Rashid worked for Superdrug Stores plc, trading as Savers, from 24 September 2020 to 18 January 2021. He was never given a contract or written statement of particulars. The tribunal accepted his evidence about the hours worked and rates of pay, found that he should have been paid £3,636.80, and found that he was actually paid £2,397.37. It rejected the suggestion that £600 had been paid to HMRC as tax because HMRC had no record of such a payment. The unlawful deductions claim was in time and succeeded in the sum of £1,239.43.

On the section 8 and section 11 pay-statement issue, the tribunal found that the claim was in time. It held that the claimant received no payslips for September, October or November 2020, and that the December 2020 and January 2021 payslips were inaccurate. The tribunal specified what each payslip should have recorded, including the hours and gross pay for September (£274.51), October (£933.40), November (£877.14 plus £212.64 night-shift pay), December (£797.40 plus £79.74 night-shift pay), and January (£120.64 plus £341.33 night-shift pay). No separate money award was attached to that point.

The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to give written particulars of employment. Using 23 basic hours per week at £8.86, it assessed a week’s pay at £203.78 and awarded four weeks’ pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, producing £815.12. The total sum ordered was £2,054.55.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal found a series of unlawful deductions from wages, concluding that the alleged £600 tax deduction was never paid to HMRC and that the total underpayment was £1,239.43. It held the claim was in time because the deductions formed a series culminating on 31 December 2020.	Upheld	—	£1,239
Other	Section 8/11 ERA itemised pay statement claim. The tribunal found the claim was in time, held that no payslips were given for September, October or November 2020, and that the December 2020 and January 2021 payslips were inaccurate. It set out the particulars that should have appeared on each payslip, but did not attach a separate monetary award to this point.	Upheld	—	—
Other	Award under section 38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written particulars of employment. The tribunal used a weekly pay figure of £203.78 based on 23 basic hours at £8.86 per hour and awarded four weeks' pay.	Upheld	—	£815

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £2,055; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 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.