Case 2404796/2025 · Employment Tribunal
A Nawaz v Soft Cell Training Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 2404796/2025
- Decision date
- 28 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
A Nawaz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented on 8 September 2025 and was not contested by Soft Cell Training Ltd. Employment Judge Eeley determined the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded: deductions were made in May, June, July and August 2025, and the tribunal awarded A Nawaz £6,586.54 net.
The tribunal found that A Nawaz was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £5,769.24. Those awards totalled £12,355.78. After accounting for £7,692.88 paid by 20 March 2026, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the outstanding sum of £4,662.90, in accordance with the claimant's updated schedule of loss dated 20 March 2026. The accompanying notice stated that interest would begin accruing at 8% per annum from 11 June 2026 if the sum was not paid in full within 14 days after the decision was sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The award was stated as £6,586.54 net. The judgment did not apportion the subsequent part-payment between this award and the redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £6,587 |
| Redundancy | The judgment did not apportion the subsequent part-payment between this award and the unauthorised deductions award. | Upheld | — | £5,769 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,663
- 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.