Case 2403582/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Azad v Amico Coffee Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2403582/2024
- Decision date
- 21 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Azad
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr K Azad brought complaints against Amico Coffee Limited for unauthorised deduction from wages and holiday pay. The respondent did not attend the hearing and had not submitted a response. Employment Judge Phil Allen heard the matter at Manchester on 15 October 2024 and gave judgment orally.
The tribunal held that the complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages was well-founded. It found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered it to pay £1,098.24 gross.
The tribunal also held that the holiday pay complaint was well-founded. It found that the respondent had not paid the claimant the pay due for accrued but untaken annual leave under the Working Time Regulations 1998 and ordered payment of £1,299.58 gross. The total monetary award recorded in the judgment was £2,397.82 gross.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £1,098.24 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,098 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent did not pay the claimant the pay due for accrued but untaken annual leave under the Working Time Regulations 1998 and ordered payment of £1,299.58 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,300 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,398
- 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.