Case 2406002/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Adnan Akbar v GStyle Group Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2406002/2022
- Decision date
- 28 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Adnan Akbar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to present a valid response on time, so the Employment Judge determined the case under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. On that basis, the tribunal found that GStyle Group Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages for April and May 2022.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £3,251.00. The judgment records the arithmetic as £1,791.00 + £1,413.00 = £3,204.00, then £3,204.00 + £47.00 = £3,251.00. No separate breakdown of the award was given beyond that wage deduction sum.
The judgment also records that complaints of discrimination on grounds of religion or belief would proceed to a preliminary hearing, so those complaints were not decided in this judgment. The notice on interest explains the general position under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, but the judgment itself does not state any calculated interest figure.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent failed to present a valid response on time and the tribunal determined the claim under rule 21. The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages for April and May 2022 and ordered payment of the gross sum of £3,251.00, made up of £1,791.00, £1,413.00 and £47.00. The separate complaint of discrimination on grounds of religion or belief was not determined in this judgment and was listed to proceed to a preliminary hearing. | Upheld | — | £3,251 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,251
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21, 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.