Case 2503759/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Mason First v Amir Kamiabi Second Respondent: Haus of Design — 2021
- Case reference
- 2503759/2019
- Decision date
- 13 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Members
- Venue
- Teesside Justice Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mrs P Wright, Mr S Hunter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Mason First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Teesside Justice Hearing Centre on 4 January 2021, before Employment Judge Johnson with Mrs P Wright and Mr S Hunter, found the claimant’s complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages well-founded. By consent, the second respondent, Haus of Design, was ordered to pay the claimant the net sum of £1,433.23 as wages unlawfully deducted.
The tribunal also considered complaints of unlawful disability discrimination and found those complaints were not well-founded. Those discrimination claims were dismissed. The judgment does not set out any separate monetary award for the discrimination claims.
The respondent’s application for costs and/or a preparation time order was refused.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal recorded that this complaint was well-founded and that, by consent, the second respondent was ordered to pay the net sum of £1,433.23 as wages unlawfully deducted. | Upheld | — | £1,433 |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal described the complaints as unlawful disability discrimination and dismissed them as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,433
- 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.