Case 2401862/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Gangat v AU Partners Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2401862/2020
- Decision date
- 12 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Gangat
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn this Rule 21 judgment, Employment Judge Franey found that AU Partners Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from Miss A Gangat's wages. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £1,493.85.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed in its duty to provide itemised pay statements to the claimant. It recorded that it had no power to make any award for injury to health, and the hearing listed for 3 July 2020 was cancelled.
The attached interest notice stated that statutory interest would apply if the award remained unpaid after 14 days, with 12 June 2020 identified as the relevant decision day and 8% as the stipulated rate. No separate interest figure was calculated in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,493.85. | Upheld | — | £1,494 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent failed in its duty to provide itemised pay statements to the claimant. No separate monetary award was stated for this point. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal stated that it had no power to make any award for injury to health. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,494
- 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.