Case 2301132/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Waqas v Simon Byrne — 2020
- Case reference
- 2301132/2020
- Decision date
- 19 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Waqas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge Wright entered judgment for the claimant, Mr M Waqas, against Simon Byrne. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £1,210 gross, calculated as 110 hours at £11 per hour.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £1,224 gross, described as two weeks' average pay from the claimant's payslips. A further award of £1,224 gross was made for failure to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, also calculated by reference to two weeks' average pay. The judgment states that the claimant is to account to HMRC.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,210, described as 110 hours x £11ph. | Upheld | — | £1,210 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £1,224, described as two x average week’s pay from the claimant’s payslips. | Upheld | — | £1,224 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and awarded £1,224, described as two x average week’s pay from the claimant’s payslips. | Upheld | — | £1,224 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,658
- 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.