Case 3201607/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Khan v Urban Chocolatier — 2019
- Case reference
- 3201607/2019
- Decision date
- 27 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Khan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 27 September 2019, Employment Judge Russell dealt with the remaining issues after a liability judgment had already been entered on 21 August 2019 for failure to pay holiday pay, arrears of pay and/or breach of contract. The tribunal dismissed the claimant's age discrimination claim and his claim for breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998 in respect of night work for young workers.
On remedy, the tribunal found that the respondent had underpaid the claimant by £234.17 in respect of his pay for January 2019. It also found that the respondent failed to pay the one month's notice pay to which the claimant was contractually entitled, and awarded £403.20 for that claim.
The tribunal further found that the claimant had accrued 4.5 days' holiday which remained outstanding on termination, and awarded £113.40 for holiday pay. The total sum payable by the respondent was £750.77.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Age discrimination claim dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Working time regulations | Claim under the Working Time Regulations 1998 in respect of night work for young workers dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Underpayment of pay for January 2019. | Upheld | — | £234 |
| Breach of contract | One month's contractual notice pay. | Upheld | — | £403 |
| Holiday pay | 4.5 days' accrued holiday outstanding on termination. | Upheld | — | £113 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £751
- 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.