Case 2400795/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Hashemi Namini v Bexam Travel Ltd (In Voluntary Liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2400795/2024
- Decision date
- 9 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Hashemi Namini
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment issued by Employment Judge M Butler on 8 August 2024 and sent to the parties on 9 August 2024. The respondent, Bexam Travel Ltd (in voluntary liquidation), did not respond and judgment was entered for the claimant on the papers.
The tribunal made three monetary orders. It found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £7,717.95. It found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered the respondent to pay damages of £2,692.30. It further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £807.69.
The judgment does not set out reasons or refer to any specific legal tests. A notice under Article 12 of the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 was issued, identifying the relevant decision day as 9 August 2024 and the stipulated rate of interest as 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum. | Upheld | — | £7,718 |
| Breach of contract | Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages awarded. | Upheld | — | £2,692 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement; sum ordered to be paid. Brought under Working Time Regulations per gov.uk listing. | Upheld | — | £808 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,218
- 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.