Case 3200419/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Rashid v Nova Syndicate Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3200419/2023
- Decision date
- 6 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge John Crosfill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Rashid
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Crosfill heard the matter on 6 July 2023 at East London Hearing Centre via CVP. The respondent did not attend or appear, had failed to comply with case management orders, and the tribunal proceeded in its absence under rule 47. The respondent's ET3 admitted that sums were due to the claimant.
The tribunal found that Nova Syndicate Limited made unlawful deductions from Mr Rashid's pay in April, July, August and September 2022. The gross shortfall in salary was calculated from a monthly salary of £2,083.33 and totalled £4,372.32.
The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that he had taken four weeks' annual leave and held that the respondent was entitled to deduct pay for 0.49 weeks taken in excess of statutory entitlement. Using a weekly rate of £480.76, that deduction was calculated at £235.57. The amount due to the claimant was therefore £4,372.32 minus £235.57, producing the award of £4,136.74 in wages.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent did not attend the hearing and had admitted in its ET3 that sums were due to the claimant. The tribunal found unlawful deductions from wages in April, July, August and September 2022 and ordered payment of the net sum after allowing for a holiday-pay offset. | Upheld | — | £4,137 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,137
- 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.