Case 2311750/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Nassera Dahmani v Manger Moi Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 2311750/2024
- Decision date
- 1 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tueje REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Nassera Dahmani
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld Nassera Dahmani’s complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages against Manger Moi Limited. It found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction during the period from 26 October 2024 to 4 November 2024 and ordered payment of £60 gross. The claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance.
When proceedings began, the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars. The tribunal found no exceptional circumstances that would make an award of two weeks’ gross pay unjust or inequitable. It considered an award of four weeks’ gross pay just and equitable and ordered payment of £480 under section 38 Employment Act 2002. The two awards total £540.
The tribunal dismissed the complaint of indirect sex discrimination as not well-founded. Reasons were given orally at the hearing on 22 May 2026; the written judgment does not set out the factual findings or reasoning behind that dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross wages award. The claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £60 |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. The tribunal made an award of four weeks’ gross pay under section 38 Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £480 |
| Sex discrimination | The complaint was indirect sex discrimination. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £540
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.