Case 2211502/2023 · Employment Tribunal
M Mohammed v Saleh Aljammai (partner in South Kitchen Restaurant) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2211502/2023
- Decision date
- 6 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Employment Judge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
M Mohammed
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, M Mohammed, worked as a chef at South Kitchen restaurant in West London from 2 May to 9 May 2023. He said the agreed rate was £12 per hour, payable at the end of each week. The respondent did not file a response, and the tribunal therefore made a judgment under Rule 21 in the claimant’s favour on the unlawful deduction from wages claim.
The tribunal found that the claimant worked 49 hours 56 minutes and that total wages due were £594.72. The claimant accepted that he had been paid £80, leaving £514.72 outstanding. The tribunal was satisfied that it had sufficient material to determine the claim and awarded the claimant £514.72 gross, subject to the appropriate deductions for income tax and National Insurance contributions.
The claimant also sought £10,000 for depression and stress said to have been caused by the respondent’s conduct, but the tribunal stated that such compensation could not be awarded in this wage claim. That request was therefore not part of the award made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent did not respond to the claim. The tribunal awarded the outstanding wages of £514.72 gross, subject to deductions for income tax and National Insurance contributions. | Upheld | — | £515 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £515
- 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.