Case 3201756/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Abubakar Boyi v Convedo Digital Experts Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201756/2023
- Decision date
- 16 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge H Travers Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Abubakar Boyi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was heard remotely at East London on 12 January 2024 before Employment Judge H Travers. The claimant attended in person and was unrepresented; the respondent did not attend and was not represented. No written reasons were provided because reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claim for a redundancy payment. It also recorded that the holiday pay claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. No other substantive findings are recorded in the written judgment for those claims.
The tribunal declared that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £14,853, calculated gross of tax and national insurance. The judgment sets out the calculation as unpaid wages for May and June 2023 and the first week of July 2023, namely (2 x £2,916) plus £673, giving £6,505, less £400 paid, leaving £6,105.
The tribunal added three months' unpaid wages from the commencement of the notice period on 6 July 2023 until 5 October 2023, calculated as (3 x £2,916) = £8,748. The total unauthorised deduction from wages was therefore £14,853, and that sum was ordered to be paid to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the holiday pay claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The award of £14,853 was ordered gross of tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £14,853 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,853
- 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.