Case 3206017/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B D Yazan v Pizza Firezza Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3206017/2022
- Decision date
- 17 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B D Yazan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 21 December 2022. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The hearing listed for 19 July 2023 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that Pizza Firezza Ltd had made unauthorised deductions from Mr B D Yazan's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay £454.71 gross. The judgment records that the Employment Tribunal could not award the claimant the income tax refund of £297.20.
The tribunal stated that the amount was calculated on a gross basis, but that the respondent was entitled to make any deductions due for tax and national insurance contributions before payment was made to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal made a rule 21 determination after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. It found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £454.71 gross. It also stated that it could not award the claimant the income tax refund of £297.20. | Upheld | — | £455 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £455
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.