Case 2214129/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Z Khechni v Rhytik Leisure Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2214129/2023
- Decision date
- 29 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Z Khechni
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Z Khechni presented claims for unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions from wages. The judgment records that the claim was issued in the Central London Employment Tribunals on 29 August 2023 and that the Respondent failed to present a valid response on time, so the Employment Judge proceeded under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal held that both the unfair dismissal claim and the unlawful deductions from wages claim succeed. No monetary remedy was assessed in this judgment, and the tribunal stated that the remedy to which the Claimant is entitled will be determined at a separate Remedy Hearing, notice of which would be sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Rule 21 judgment: the Respondent failed to present a valid response on time, so the claim was determined without a response. Remedy was left to a separate Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment: the Respondent failed to present a valid response on time, so the claim was determined without a response. Remedy was left to a separate Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.