Case 2500891/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Khazravan v Canny Clever It Service Centres Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500891/2024
- Decision date
- 17 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Khazravan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Khazravan brought claims against Canny Clever IT Service Centres Limited for unlawful deduction of wages under section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996 and breach of contract for failure to give or pay notice. The hearing was on 17 July 2024 at Newcastle Employment Tribunal, conducted remotely by CVP before Employment Judge Sweeney. The respondent did not attend and was not represented.
The tribunal held that the unlawful deduction of wages claim was well-founded and succeeded. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross amount of £2,140.
The tribunal also held that the breach of contract claim was well-founded and succeeded. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the net amount of £413 for failure to give or pay notice. The total award recorded by the tribunal was £2,553. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim well-founded under section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996 and ordered payment of the gross amount of £2,140. | Upheld | — | £2,140 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claim well-founded for failure to give or pay notice and ordered payment of £413 net. | Upheld | — | £413 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,553
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.