Case 3205434/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B A Wahla v HGA Accountants and Financial Consultants Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3205434/2021
- Decision date
- 16 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B A Wahla
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Russell heard the matter at East London Hearing Centre on 18 February 2022 under Rule 21 because the respondent did not attend and was not represented. The judgment records that the claims of disability discrimination, breach of contract, holiday pay, and unauthorised deduction from wages all succeeded. The unfair dismissal claim did not proceed to a merits finding because it was struck out on the basis that the Claimant did not have two years' continuous service.
The judgment did not determine remedy. It directed that the amount the Claimant is entitled to would be decided at a remedy hearing listed for 9 June 2022 by cloud video platform, and required the Claimant to serve a schedule of loss, supporting evidence, and a witness statement by 18 March 2022. The respondent was permitted to participate in the remedy hearing to the extent allowed by the Tribunal.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the Claimant did not have two years' continuous service. | Struck out | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the .
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.