Case 2401433/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Awad v Kinza Food Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2401433/2023
- Decision date
- 25 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Awad
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A Awad brought complaints about the effect a P60 he received had on his Tax Credits and about having received a payslip after his employment had ended. The hearing took place at Manchester Employment Tribunal on 16 May 2023 before Employment Judge M Butler, with the claimant appearing in person and assisted by Mr S Saheb, and the respondent represented by Mr T Mahmood, a director of the respondent.
The tribunal recorded that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims brought by the claimant. On that basis, both complaints were dismissed. No factual findings on the merits of either complaint and no monetary award were made.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. No further reasoning or remedy assessment is set out in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint about the effect a P60 received had on the claimant's Tax Credits; the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Complaint about receiving a payslip after employment had ended; the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.