Case 3200287/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Sadiq v EPP Group Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200287/2024
- Decision date
- 10 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Sadiq
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 and did not attend the hearing on 10 June 2024. Employment Judge J S Burns heard from the claimant, Mr A Sadiq, who said he worked for the respondent on commission introducing deals and had not been paid commission due on a number of transactions.
The tribunal accepted that commission was due on the deals identified as concluded on or about 9/23, 15/10, 15/09, 5/10, 5/10, 5/10, 3/10, 9/10, 10/10 and 13/10, totalling £2,200. Mr Sadiq also identified two further prospective deals dated 27/10 and 19/10, worth £200 and £160, which he could not confirm had been concluded because his employment had ended. The respondent did not show that those deals were not concluded in his favour.
Judgment was therefore entered for unpaid commission in the total sum of £2,560, payable by 24 June 2024. No separate remedy breakdown was recorded beyond the total payment ordered.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal awarded unpaid commission of £2,560, including two additional prospective deals the claimant believed were probably concluded and which the respondent did not attend to dispute. | Upheld | — | £2,560 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,560
- 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.