Case 2304934/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A.S. Yahya v Ahbab and Co Limited By CVP — 2022
- Case reference
- 2304934/2020
- Decision date
- 18 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A.S. Yahya
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the Respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the Claimant's wages and ordered payment of £2,092.79. It also found that the Claimant had accrued four days' holiday at the termination of his employment and ordered payment of £262.72 for that entitlement.
The tribunal further ordered £172.68 pursuant to section 24(2) Employment Rights Act 1996, described in the judgment as following from the calculation of the Claimant's Universal Credit on the basis that salary had been paid when it had not been paid. The Claimant's claim for legal costs was dismissed. The extracted judgment records the dispositive orders but does not set out fuller written reasons in the text supplied.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the Respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £2,092.79. | Upheld | — | £2,093 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the Claimant was entitled to four days' holiday accrued on termination and ordered payment of £262.72. | Upheld | — | £263 |
| Other | The tribunal made a separate order pursuant to section 24(2) Employment Rights Act 1996 in the sum of £172.68, described as following from the Universal Credit calculation based on salary having been paid when it had not been paid. | Upheld | — | £173 |
| Other | The Claimant's claim for legal costs was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,528
- 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.