Case 2406001/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Noor Khan v GStyle Group Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2406001/2022
- Decision date
- 28 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Noor Khan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent had failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge KM Ross decided that a determination could properly be made on the papers. The judgment is dated 13 March 2023 and was sent to the parties on 28 March 2023.
The tribunal found that GStyle Group Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr Noor Khan's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £3,572 within 14 days. The judgment breaks that figure down as £1,406 for May 2022 and £456 plus £1,710 for June 2022, totalling £2,166 for June and £3,572 overall.
The accompanying notice on interest explains that interest is payable only if the award remains unpaid after the relevant decision day, which in this case was 28 March 2023, but the judgment itself does not quantify any interest sum. No other substantive claim outcome or separate remedy is recorded in the extracted judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Determined under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal ordered payment of the gross sum within 14 days. | Upheld | — | £3,572 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,572
- 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.