Case 3200318/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Z Queddeng v Ags Construction Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3200318/2020
- Decision date
- 22 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Allen QC
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Z Queddeng
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Z Queddeng presented his ET1 on 22 January 2020, claiming unlawful deduction from wages for October 2019, his last month of employment, with gross pay stated as £2,750. The form also ticked unfair dismissal, but the tribunal recorded that his current period of employment with AGS Construction Limited had started on 20 February 2019 and that he therefore lacked the two years' continuous qualifying service needed for unfair dismissal rights. He also told the tribunal that he was only pursuing the October 2019 pay claim.
The hearing took place by remote telephone on 19 June 2020 before Employment Judge Allen QC, sitting alone. The respondent did not attend, but emailed the tribunal that morning saying it had paid £1,970.68 and attaching a bank printout. The claimant checked his own bank account online and confirmed that the payment had been made.
The claimant had calculated a slightly higher net amount as due to him, but decided not to pursue the matter further because the payment largely reflected what he considered payable. On that basis, the tribunal dismissed the claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant ticked unfair dismissal on the ET1, but the tribunal recorded that he started the current period of employment on 20 February 2019 and therefore lacked the two years' continuous qualifying service needed for unfair dismissal rights. He also said at the hearing that he was only bringing the wages claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim concerned October 2019 pay, stated as gross £2,750. Before the hearing the respondent paid £1,970.68, which the claimant checked and accepted as his net pay for that month, and he decided not to pursue the matter further. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.