Case 3200293/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Rahman v Wetheintrepid Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3200293/2023
- Decision date
- 15 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A.M.S. Green
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Rahman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at East London Hearing Centre via CVP on 15 August 2023 before Employment Judge A.M.S. Green. The claimant, Mr S Rahman, appeared in person and the respondent did not attend or was not represented. The tribunal found the unlawful deduction of wages claim well-founded and ordered Wetheintrepid Ltd to pay £958.33, described in the judgment as one month’s gross pay.
The tribunal dismissed the claim for failure to provide an itemized pay statement. It also made an additional award of £479.16 under sections 38(1) to (5) of the Employment Act 2002, described as two weeks’ gross pay, because the respondent had issued a contract of employment that did not comply with the requirements of Employment Rights Act 1996 sections 1 to 7B. The judgment records no further reasoning beyond those conclusions, and the total monetary liability stated is £1,437.49.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the unlawful deduction of wages claim well-founded and ordered £958.33, described as one month’s gross pay. It also made a separate award of £479.16 under the Employment Act 2002 s.38(1)-(5) because the contract of employment did not comply with ERA 1996 ss.1-7B. | Upheld | — | £958 |
| Other | Claim for failure to provide an itemized pay statement was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,437
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Act 2002 ss.38(1)-(5)
- Employment Rights Act 1996 ss.1-7B
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.