Case 3200059/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Abousif v Al Khayma Lebanese Restaurant — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200059/2021
- Decision date
- 1 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Brien
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Abousif
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant started working part-time for the respondent in or around mid-May 2020 and full-time from 3 June 2020. It preferred the contemporaneous documents and WhatsApp messages to the oral evidence, found the live witnesses unreliable, and concluded that the claimant was engaged on a basis of £800 net per week for 48 hours, with part of that pay processed through payroll and the balance paid cash in hand. It also found that the claimant knew of and agreed to that arrangement.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim based on asserted statutory rights under s.104 ERA 1996. The tribunal found the claimant did not establish that he had asserted the rights alleged, and in any event it found he was not dismissed but resigned with effect from 20 September 2020. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim based on protected disclosure under s.103A ERA 1996. The tribunal found no protected disclosure to the respondent about illegal workers and found the claimant was not dismissed, but resigned with effect from 20 September 2020. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found no dismissal and, alternatively, held that the employment contract was illegal on creation or unlawful in performance, with the claimant's knowledge and active participation, so no contractual notice claim could succeed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for the September 2020 pay shortfall. The tribunal found the claimant worked three weeks in September 2020 and received £400 that month, but refused recovery because the contract was illegal and not severable. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for payment in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday. The tribunal found about 2.1 weeks' accrued holiday in the final leave year, but held no payment was recoverable for the same illegality reasons. | Dismissed |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.104 ERA 1996
- s.43A-43C ERA 1996
- art. 3 and 4 Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- Neary v the Dean of Westminster
- s.13 ERA 1996; regs 13, 13A and 14 WTR 1998
- s.1(1) ERA 1996; s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.