Case 2307647/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Jalili, Union Representative For the v Mr H Whitcombe, Representative — 2025
- Case reference
- 2307647/2023
- Decision date
- 13 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morton Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Jalili, Union Representative For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Morton sitting alone at London South held that the Claimant was entitled to £64.43 from the Respondents because wages had been paid below the applicable national minimum wage rate. The judgment does not set out any broader findings beyond that wage shortfall, but it records that the Claimant succeeded to that limited extent.
The judgment also states that all other claims by the Claimant in respect of wages were not made out and were dismissed. No separate apportionment of the £64.43 is given, and no other monetary components are identified in the written decision.
The decision was given orally on 9 January 2025 and entered in the Register on 13 January 2025. No written reasons were provided, so the summary of reasoning is confined to the terms of the short written record.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment awards £64.43 in respect of wages paid below the applicable rate of the national minimum wage. The judgment also states that all other claims by the Claimant in respect of wages were not made out and were dismissed. | Upheld | — | £64 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £64
- 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.