Case 2408405/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Sadiq v Dr Christopher JDBR Ireland Ph.D. — 2022
- Case reference
- 2408405/2021
- Decision date
- 9 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Sadiq
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting alone at Manchester by CVP on 4 February 2022, heard Mr Sadiq's claims against Dr Christopher JDBR Ireland Ph.D. It upheld the unpaid wages claim and ordered the respondent to pay £2,901.17. The tribunal stated that this figure was calculated using gross monthly pay and that the respondent was to deduct the sums due to HM Revenue and Customs for Income Tax and National Insurance.
The tribunal dismissed the claim for notice pay. Its reason was that Mr Sadiq, rather than the respondent, terminated the employment contract and therefore did not serve the four-week notice period set out in the contract. The written record states that the total payable by the respondent was £2,901.17, less Income Tax and National Insurance.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal described this as a claim for unpaid wages and ordered payment of £2,901.17 gross, less the required deductions for Income Tax and National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £2,901 |
| Breach of contract | The claim to notice pay was dismissed because the claimant, not the respondent, terminated the employment contract and therefore did not serve the four-week notice period in the contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,901
- 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.