Case 2206701/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Aouad v Respondit Web Design Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2206701/2021
- Decision date
- 6 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gordon Walker
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Aouad
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 19 October 2021. The respondent did not present a valid response in time, and a hearing took place on 5 January 2022 before Employment Judge Gordon Walker. The respondent was permitted to participate to the extent that it accepted that the claims were well founded and that the sums sought by the claimant were payable. The tribunal determined the case under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal recorded that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £6,766.68 gross. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,137 gross.
The tribunal further found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £597.72 net. The judgment was dated 5 January 2022 and sent to the parties on 6 January 2022.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £6,766.68 gross. | Upheld | — | £6,767 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant's holiday entitlement had not been paid and ordered payment of £1,137 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,137 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £597.72 net. | Upheld | — | £598 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,501
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.