Case 2305201/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Angyal v Jordan James Partners — 2024
- Case reference
- 2305201/2023
- Decision date
- 3 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rea Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Angyal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 27 September 2023. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. At a hearing attended by the claimant, the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that Jordan James Partners had made unauthorised deductions from Mr Angyal’s wages. The award was £1,247.56 gross. The judgment states that this comprised unpaid salary for the period 28 May to 7 June 2023 inclusive, calculated at a daily rate of £96.15, and unpaid commission of 2.5% on the respondent’s fee of $21,250 at a conversion rate of 0.79.
The judgment also records that interest for delayed receipt was applied at 5%, and that Mr Angyal is responsible for accounting to HMRC for any income tax and National Insurance contributions due on the award. No separate breakdown of interest was given in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and awarded £1,247.56 gross, made up of unpaid salary for 28 May to 7 June 2023 and unpaid commission. Interest for delayed receipt was applied at 5%, but no separate interest figure was stated. | Upheld | — | £1,248 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,248
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.