Case 3203916/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Mushtaq v UC Franchising Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3203916/2022
- Decision date
- 19 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation Claimant
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Mushtaq
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was heard by telephone at East London Hearing Centre on 14 December 2022 before Tribunal Judge Overton, acting as an Employment Judge. The respondent did not appear and no response was entered. On that basis, the tribunal dealt with the case under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's claim for unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered UC Franchising Ltd to pay £1,200 gross, calculated as £500 per week for 2.4 weeks. It also upheld the claimant's claim for payment for accrued, untaken holiday on termination and ordered payment of £153 gross, calculated as 1.53 days' holiday at £500 per week. The total award was £1,353.00.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim succeeded under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure because no response was entered. | Upheld | — | £1,200 |
| Holiday pay | The claim for payment for accrued, untaken holiday on termination succeeded under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure because no response was entered. | Upheld | — | £153 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,353
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.