Case 2403514/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Kamran v Hot Leadz Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2403514/2024
- Decision date
- 15 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Kamran
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Phil Allen entered judgment under Rule 21 in favour of Miss L Kamran against Hot Leadz Ltd. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of unpaid wages for 1 to 15 May 2024, and ordered payment of £1,166.88 gross.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It awarded £480.48, being one week’s statutory notice pay, calculated using gross pay so as to reflect the likelihood that the sum would be taxed as post-employment notice pay.
No award was made for holiday pay because the claimant had not provided information about the sums owed. The total gross sum payable was £1,647.36.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages for unpaid wages covering 1 to 15 May 2024 and ordered payment of the gross sum claimed. | Upheld | — | £1,167 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded one week’s statutory notice pay, calculated on gross pay to reflect post-employment notice pay treatment. | Upheld | — | £480 |
| Holiday pay | No award was made because the claimant had not provided information about the sums owed. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,647
- 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.