Case 2300398/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Awelde Raul v Isaac Knights Recruitment Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2300398/2023
- Decision date
- 11 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Fowell Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Awelde Raul
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal granted the claimant's application to reconsider the judgment dated 16 August 2023, which had been made in the absence of the parties. It found that it was not reasonably practicable for Mr Raul to have submitted the claim form within the normal time limit, and on that basis held that the claim was presented in time.
Isaac Knights Recruitment Limited did not respond to the claim and did not appear at the hearing. In the absence of any response, the Tribunal gave judgment for the claimant.
The substantive finding was that Mr Raul had suffered an unlawful deduction from wages. The amount awarded was £627, calculated as 66 hours worked at £9.50 per hour. The judgment does not record any separate award for interest or any additional heads of loss.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal granted reconsideration of the earlier judgment dated 16 August 2023, held that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim within the normal time limit, and therefore treated the claim as in time. The respondent did not respond, and judgment was entered for the claimant for £627, representing 66 hours at £9.50 per hour. | Upheld | — | £627 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £627
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- not reasonably practicable
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.