Case 2216781/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Elyes Hachicha v Stronghold Global Finance (UK) Ltd. Hearing: Preliminary Hearing — 2024
- Case reference
- 2216781/2023
- Decision date
- 11 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tinnion For
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. Elyes Hachicha
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant brought claims under s.13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 against his then employer, seeking unpaid wages for September 2023 (£997.82) and October 2023 (£1,045.33), together with reimbursement of business expenses (£249.99). The Respondent did not present a response to the claim, did not reply to the Tribunal's correspondence of 16 February 2024 inviting it to clarify its position, made no application, and did not attend the preliminary hearing on 28 February 2024.
Employment Judge Tinnion, sitting alone at London Central ET by video (CVP), reviewed the materials and was satisfied that the factual and legal basis of the claim was understood and that it was appropriate to issue a judgment under Rule 21. The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant a total of £2,293.14, comprising the two months of unpaid wages and the unpaid business expenses.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996 for unpaid wages for September 2023 (£997.82) and October 2023 (£1,045.33). Rule 21 judgment entered as the Respondent did not present a response or attend. | Upheld | — | £2,043 |
| Other | Claim for reimbursement of unpaid business expenses (£249.99). The judgment does not specify the legal basis for the expenses element separately from the s.13 ERA 1996 wages claims; classified as 'other' to avoid invention. | Upheld | — | £250 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,293
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- s.13 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.