Case 2502231/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Izgordu v Easy Business Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2502231/2023
- Decision date
- 9 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Izgordu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr S Izgordu was employed by Easy Business Group Limited from 5 June 2023 to 24 August 2023. He started as a sales associate on an annual salary of £21,000 and was promoted from 1 July 2023 to Marketing and IT Manager on £28,000 a year. The tribunal recorded that his wages were payable at month end and that the Respondent took no part in the proceedings.
The tribunal found that salary due on 31 July 2023 and 31 August 2023 was properly payable and had not been paid. Applying section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, it held that the failure to pay those sums was an unauthorised deduction from wages. It also found the claim was brought in time. The tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay £4,271.79 gross.
The separate claim for recovery of expenses under article 3 of the ET's Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994 was dismissed. Although there had been discussion about a possible travel allowance, including a figure of £100 per month, the tribunal was not satisfied that there was any contractually binding agreement for such an allowance, and nothing was set out in either written contract.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions of wages in respect of salary due on 31 July 2023 and 31 August 2023. The judgment text contains a date typo ('31 August 29023'); this has been treated as 31 August 2023 from context. | Upheld | — | £4,272 |
| Breach of contract | Claim for recovery of travel expenses / a travel allowance under article 3 of the ET's Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994. The tribunal was not satisfied there was any contractually binding agreement, and nothing was set out in either written contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,272
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- article 3 of the ET's Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994
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.