Case 3201703/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Y Dahir v Paradise Logistics Limited and 1 other — 2023

Case reference: 3201703/2023
Decision date: 8 August 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Howden-Evans Representation

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mr Y Dahir

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the 15 May 2024 final hearing, the tribunal proceeded in the absence of both respondents under Rule 47 after there had been no attendance and no compliance with case management directions. It found that Mr Y Dahir was at all relevant times an employee and worker of Paradise Logistics Limited, that his employment began on 11 July 2023, and that the effective date of termination was 21 August 2023 when he was removed from the group chat used to send instructions and work. The claims against Ms Adomaitiene were dismissed.

The tribunal upheld the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages for the period 11 July to 21 August 2023. It awarded £1,050 for the gross deductions and £255 for financial loss attributable to those deductions. It also upheld the notice pay complaint and awarded £560, being one week’s gross notice pay, and upheld the holiday pay complaint, awarding £392 for 3.5 days of accrued but untaken holiday.

The complaint that the claimant was refused daily rest breaks under regulation 12(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was upheld, with compensation of £61.53 calculated by reference to 5.3 hours of rest-break time at the claimant’s net hourly rate. The tribunal also found that Paradise Logistics Limited failed to provide written itemised pay statements required by section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and awarded £1,050, and that it was in breach of its duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars when proceedings began, leading to an award of £2,240 under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002.

A 25% uplift under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was applied to the wages, financial loss, notice pay, holiday pay, rest-break and itemised pay statement awards. The tribunal recorded total liability at £6,450.66 and said that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 did not apply. Interest was to accrue at 8% per annum on unpaid compensation remaining outstanding 14 days after the judgment.

Claims and outcomes

6 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	Award comprised £1,050 gross deductions plus £255 financial loss; the tribunal applied a 25% ACAS uplift to this and other awards.	Upheld	—	£1,305
Breach of contract	One week’s gross notice pay; included in the 25% ACAS uplift calculation.	Upheld	—	£560
Holiday pay	Accrued but untaken holiday pay for 3.5 days; included in the 25% ACAS uplift calculation.	Upheld	—	£392
Working time regulations	Compensation for refusal of daily rest breaks under regulation 12(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998; included in the 25% ACAS uplift calculation.	Upheld	—	£62
Other	Failure to provide written itemised pay statements under section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996; included in the 25% ACAS uplift calculation.	Upheld	—	£1,050
Other	Award of four weeks’ gross pay under section 38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars; not included in the ACAS uplift.	Upheld	—	£2,240

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £6,451; across all upheld claims
Compensatory award: £5,609; compensatory remedy recorded

Legal tests applied

8 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.