Case 2300272/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Shahed Ahmed v Hazan Ataoglu — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300272/2022
- Decision date
- 6 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Wright
- Venue
- London South via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Shahed Ahmed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge D Wright, sitting alone, found that Shahed Ahmed was automatically unfairly dismissed by Hazan Ataoglu. The tribunal also found that the respondent's actions prevented the claimant from taking his annual leave entitlement.
The tribunal ordered payment of a basic award of £926.00, unpaid holiday pay of £1,259.36, an ACAS Code uplift of £109.27, and £926.00 for failure to provide written particulars of employment. The total award was £3,220.63, payable within 14 days of service of the order. The written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and would not be provided in writing unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed and awarded a basic award of £926.00 plus an ACAS Code uplift of £109.27. | Upheld | — | £1,035 |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal found the claimant was prevented from taking his annual leave entitlement and awarded unpaid holiday pay of £1,259.36. | Upheld | — | £1,259 |
| Other | The tribunal awarded £926.00 for failure to provide written particulars of employment. | Upheld | — | £926 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,221
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £926
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,295
- 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.