Case 2301419/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B K Ofori v Caysh Enterprise CIC — 2019
- Case reference
- 2301419/2019
- Decision date
- 6 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nash Representation
- Venue
- Croydon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B K Ofori
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr B K Ofori was unfairly dismissed by Caysh Enterprise CIC. It stated that it was just and equitable to reduce the compensatory award for unfair dismissal by 100% and the basic award by 75%, and then ordered the respondent to pay a basic award of £1,524.00.
By consent, the tribunal also found that the respondent had made unauthorized deductions from the claimant’s wages, being holiday pay, in the gross sum of £216.67. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It recorded that the compensatory award for unfair dismissal was reduced by 100% and the basic award by 75%, and ordered payment of a basic award of £1,524.00. | Upheld | — | £1,524 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | By consent, the tribunal found that the respondent made unauthorized deductions from wages, described as holiday pay, in the gross sum of £216.67. | Upheld | — | £217 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,741
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,524
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- 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.