Case 2403968/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Hameed v Mr K Disley — 2023
- Case reference
- 2403968/2023
- Decision date
- 22 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Hameed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting under Rule 21, held that Mr K Disley had made unauthorised deductions from Mr F Hameed's wages contrary to Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It ordered payment of a gross sum of £4,830.
The award was calculated at £10 per hour and comprised £80 for underpaid wages from November 2022, £4,300 for 430 hours worked but not paid in December 2022, and £650 for 65 hours worked but not paid in January 2023. The tribunal then deducted £200 for expenses owed by the claimant to the respondent, producing the final figure of £4,830.
The judgment also stated that the claimant would be responsible for any tax liabilities arising from the gross award if tax was not deducted at source. The accompanying notice recorded that interest would be payable under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if the award remained unpaid after the relevant decision day of 21 July 2023, at a stipulated rate of 8% per annum, but no separate quantified interest amount was set out in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages contrary to Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and awarded the gross sum calculated from unpaid wages at £10 per hour, less £200 expenses owed to the respondent. | Upheld | — | £4,830 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,830
- 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.