Case 2214013/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Sefa Muhammet Koku v Phoenix Human Resources Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2214013/2023
- Decision date
- 25 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Sefa Muhammet Koku
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge E Burns determined the case under rule 21 after the respondent failed to file an ET3 within the deadline and did not request an extension of time. On the ET1 and the documents supplied by the claimant, the tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay April 2023 wages of £2,000 gross and overtime of £2,946.50 gross, and also failed to pay £886.17 gross in lieu of 9.6 days holiday pay accrued but not taken.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £5,832.67 in respect of those pay and holiday items and to account to HMRC for any tax and National Insurance due on that sum. It also found that the respondent had breached the claimant’s contract by failing to reimburse expenses of £566.95, ordered that amount to be paid in addition, and stated that it was not subject to tax or National Insurance. The total payable was £6,399.62, and the hearing listed for 29 October 2024 did not proceed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay April 2023 wages of £2,000 gross and overtime of £2,946.50 gross. | Upheld | — | £4,947 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had also failed to pay in lieu of 9.6 days holiday pay accrued but not taken. | Upheld | — | £886 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent breached the contract by failing to reimburse expenses; this sum was ordered in addition and was not subject to tax or National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £567 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,400
- 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.