Case 2206766/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Islam, lay representative For the v Mr F Miah, lay representative — 2021
- Case reference
- 2206766/2020
- Decision date
- 15 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A James Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Islam, lay representative For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely by CVP on 12 March 2021, with the parties consenting to a remote hearing because a face-to-face hearing was not practicable during the pandemic. The tribunal heard oral evidence from the claimant, Mr R Uddin, through a translator, and from Mr A Bakkar for the respondent, Milkman Camden Limited.
In the written judgment record, the tribunal dismissed both claims. The breach of contract claim, described as unpaid wages/holiday pay, was dismissed under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. The separate claim for unauthorised deduction of wages, also described as unpaid wages/holiday pay, was dismissed under s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996.
The written record does not set out detailed findings of fact or the tribunal's full reasons for either dismissal. It notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal recorded that the breach of contract claim related to unpaid wages/holiday pay and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal recorded that the claim under s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996 for unauthorised deduction of wages, described as unpaid wages/holiday pay, failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- s.23 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.