Case 2411264/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Riley v Mr Rameez Haider and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 2411264/2019
- Decision date
- 5 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss R Riley
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in an unlawful deduction from wages claim brought by Miss R Riley against Mr Rameez Haider and Global 5 Marketing Ltd. The tribunal found that Global 5 Marketing Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered it to pay the net sum of £2,752.33.
The claim against Mr Rameez Haider was dismissed because he was not the claimant's employer. The judgment records that the claim against him had no reasonable prospect of success. The hearing listed for 16 December 2019 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that Global 5 Marketing Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered it to pay the net sum of £2,752.33. | Upheld | — | £2,752 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim against Mr Rameez Haider was dismissed because he was not the claimant's employer and the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,752
- 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.