Case 2207596/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Abbasi v Paul Daniel and Anouk Daniel Heard: London Central by CVP — 2023
- Case reference
- 2207596/2022
- Decision date
- 26 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Codd Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Abbasi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 26 June 2023, at London Central by CVP, Employment Judge Codd recorded that Paul Daniel and Anouk Daniel Heard must pay Mr K Abbasi the net sum of £400 by way of unpaid notice pay. The judgment directs that appropriate Tax and National Insurance deductions are to be made from the gross sum before the net amount is forwarded to the claimant.
The written record also states that the other claims for unpaid wages and unpaid holiday pay fail and are dismissed. No separate written reasons are included in the record, which notes that written reasons would only be provided if requested within 14 days of the written decision being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal ordered the respondents to pay the claimant the net sum of £400 by way of unpaid notice pay, with tax and National Insurance deductions to be made from the gross sum before payment. | Upheld | — | £400 |
| Other | The written record refers generically to 'other claims for unpaid wages' and dismisses them; no more specific legal label is given in the judgment text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim for unpaid holiday pay was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £400
- 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.