Case 2404720/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Fatma Hamaid v IAC Academy Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2404720/2019
- Decision date
- 4 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sherratt
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Fatma Hamaid
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Sherratt entered judgment under Rule 21 against IAC Academy Limited. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,716.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered the respondent to pay damages of £390. The judgment itself records only these two monetary awards and does not set out further reasons beyond the orders made.
The attached notice records the standard interest information under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990. It states that the relevant decision day was 4 September 2019, the calculation day was 5 September 2019, and the stipulated rate of interest was 8% if the awards were not paid within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £1,716. | Upheld | — | £1,716 |
| Breach of contract | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £390. | Upheld | — | £390 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,106
- 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.