Case 2403687/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Ahmed v Nybble.co.uk Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2403687/2023
- Decision date
- 10 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McDonald Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Ahmed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr S Ahmed brought a claim for unauthorised deductions from wages, saying that he had worked for nybble.co.uk Ltd from 15 September 2022 as a Softwear Operator and was owed three months' wages. The respondent's case was that he had never been employed by it, and it said it had never employed the manager named in the claim form, Greg Jackson. The claim was listed for a final hearing on 3 October 2023 before Employment Judge McDonald, but the claimant and his named representative did not attend or join the CVP hearing.
The tribunal attempted to contact the claimant and his representative without success and proceeded under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. In a claim for unauthorised deductions, the tribunal noted that the claimant first had to establish that he was a worker of the respondent. The respondent relied on payroll and HR evidence and a witness statement from Mr Gupta, which the tribunal said corroborated its position that the claimant was not a worker and that Greg Jackson had not been employed by it. In the absence of any evidence from the claimant, the tribunal was not satisfied that he had ever been a worker of the respondent, and the claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant did not attend the final hearing. The tribunal held that, on the material before it, it could not be satisfied that the claimant was ever a worker of the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- s.13(1) ERA 1996
- s.27(1) ERA 1996
- s.13(3) ERA 1996
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.