Case 2216794/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Anam v Kitchen Labs Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2216794/2023
- Decision date
- 12 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Anam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard on 29 February 2024 at London Central via CVP before Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer. The respondent did not attend and had not presented a response within the required time limit. The tribunal called and emailed the respondent, waited until 10:30am, and then proceeded in its absence under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal determined that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr M Anam's wages in September 2023. It ordered the respondent to pay £1,442.31 for that deduction, with the amount subject to payroll deductions. The tribunal also found that the respondent owed the claimant expenses following the end of his employment and ordered payment of £6,629.26 in recompense.
The judgment records a total net payment due from the respondent to the claimant of £7,621.62. The judgment does not set out any separate discrimination or unfair dismissal findings, and it contains no remedy elements such as injury to feelings, interest, or a basic or compensatory award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages in September 2023 and ordered payment of £1,442.31, subject to payroll deductions. | Upheld | — | £1,442 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent owed the claimant expenses following the end of his employment and ordered £6,629.26 in recompense. | Upheld | — | £6,629 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,622
- 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.