Case 2304729/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Bahur Mr M Bahur v GV Group (Gate Ventures) Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2304729/2023
- Decision date
- 17 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Bahur Mr M Bahur
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London South on 17 June 2024 before Employment Judge V Wright. The written judgment records that the claimants, Mr K Bahur and Mr M Bahur, did not attend and made no representations or written submissions, while the respondent was represented by Ms E Watkins, Director.
The judgment records a single operative outcome: the claimants' claims were dismissed. The written record does not set out separate findings on the underlying factual disputes or identify distinct remedies, and no monetary award is recorded.
The note to the judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons will not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's notice. On the face of the written record, the dismissal is the only recorded substantive disposition.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written record states that the claimants' claims were dismissed. No written reasons were provided because reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The written record states that the claimants' claims were dismissed. No written reasons were provided because reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.