Case 3201554/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Ahmad v Konsus Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3201554/2019
- Decision date
- 20 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Ahmad
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr S Ahmad's claim for unauthorised deduction from wages succeeded. The tribunal ordered Konsus Limited to pay £882.00 gross in respect of that claim.
The claimant also succeeded on a breach of contract claim limited to notice, and the tribunal ordered payment of £634.62 gross for that head of claim. The unfair dismissal claim failed and was dismissed, and the holiday pay claim also failed and was dismissed. The judgment does not record any separate remedy calculation beyond the two gross sums awarded on the successful claims.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal recorded that the claim of unauthorised deduction from wages succeeded and awarded the gross sum of £882.00. | Upheld | — | £882 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal recorded that the breach of contract claim, limited to notice, succeeded and awarded the gross sum of £634.62. | Upheld | — | £635 |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the holiday pay claim failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,517
- 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.