Case 2405661/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Ashraf v Nazs Walton Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2405661/2023
- Decision date
- 11 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Ashraf
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Slater decided that a determination could properly be made on the papers without a hearing. The only substantive claim identified in the judgment was an unlawful deduction from wages claim by Mr R Ashraf against Nazs Walton Limited.
The tribunal held that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered it to pay the claimant the gross sum of £2,650. The hearing listed for 29 September 2023 was cancelled. The judgment does not set out separate liability reasoning beyond the Rule 21 determination and the finding of unauthorised deduction.
A separate notice explained the tribunal's interest regime and stated that the relevant decision day was 11 September 2023, with the calculation day on 12 September 2023 and the stipulated rate of interest at 8% per annum. No separate interest sum was quantified in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment: the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal decided a determination could properly be made on the papers and found an unauthorised deduction from wages, ordering payment of the gross sum of £2,650. | Upheld | — | £2,650 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,650
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.