Case 2302828/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Hamdan v Michael Frick — 2019
- Case reference
- 2302828/2019
- Decision date
- 6 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge HYDE Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Hamdan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment issued after the hearing listed on 6 November 2019 was cancelled. Employment Judge Hyde recorded that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages in respect of overtime pay and ordered payment of £2,100 gross.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £2,844.00. It further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £3,413.54 gross.
In addition, the tribunal found a further breach of contract and/or unauthorised deductions from pay in relation to expenses incurred by the claimant, and ordered repayment or damages of £1,200. The total amount ordered by the judgment is £9,557.54.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £3,414 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of overtime pay. | Upheld | — | £2,100 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £2,844 |
| Breach of contract | Failure to reimburse expenses incurred; the judgment describes this as further breach of contract and/or unauthorised deductions from pay. | Upheld | — | £1,200 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,558
- 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.