Case 2219449/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mohammed Azam (in person) For the v Brooklyn Pizza Crew Fulham Branch — 2025
- Case reference
- 2219449/2024
- Decision date
- 18 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gidney Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mohammed Azam (in person) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Mohammed Azam, brought a single claim of unlawful deductions from wages against Brooklyn Pizza Crew Fulham Branch. The respondent did not file a response and did not attend the final hearing on 10 February 2025. A second postponement application, made late the night before the hearing on medical grounds, was refused because the tribunal was not satisfied that the respondent’s representative was unfit to attend or that another officer, employee, solicitor or agent could not have represented the respondent.
On the merits, the tribunal accepted the claimant’s evidence. He had been employed as Front of House from 8 December 2022 until termination on 7 April 2024. He produced a schedule of underpayments said to have been given to him by Mr Eshraghi and bank statements showing credits consistent with the payments reflected in that schedule. The tribunal found no reason to doubt his veracity and accepted that the amount unlawfully deducted from his wages was £2,271.39 net.
The claimant also said the schedule was incomplete because some hours worked had been omitted. The tribunal noted that, even if that was correct, he could not prove what his recorded hours should have been or what additional sum might have been due. For that reason, compensation was limited to the sum established on the evidence, namely £2,271.39 net after tax.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages in the period 21 December 2023 to 7 April 2024 and limited the award to the net sum established on the evidence. | Upheld | — | £2,271 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,271
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £2,271
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.