Case 3200508/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Ben-Hariz v PAY ICX Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3200508/2023
- Decision date
- 5 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Comfort Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Ben-Hariz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, Mr A Ben-Hariz, brought a complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages against PAY ICX Ltd. The Respondent did not attend the hearing. Employment Judge I Comfort found the complaint well-founded and succeeded on 5 September 2023, following the hearing at East London Hearing Centre on 4 September 2023.
The tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay £4,519.23 within 14 days of the order being sent to the parties. That sum comprised £2,500 for unpaid wages for February 2022, £865.38 for accrued holiday pay for the period 9 November 2022 to 9 February 2023, and £1,153.85 for two weeks' contractual notice.
The judgment does not record any separate discrimination, unfair dismissal, or whistleblowing findings, and it does not set out any legal test beyond the unauthorised deduction from wages complaint that succeeded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the Claimant's complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages well-founded and ordered payment of £4,519.23, made up of £2,500 unpaid wages for February 2022, £865.38 accrued holiday pay for 9 November 2022 to 9 February 2023, and £1,153.85 for two weeks' contractual notice. | Upheld | — | £4,519 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,519
- 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.