Case 3206105/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr N Islam v Brexport Limited — 2023

Case reference: 3206105/2022
Decision date: 26 June 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Gordon Walker

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr N Islam

Respondent

Brexport Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the public CVP hearing on 26 June 2023 before Employment Judge Gordon Walker sitting alone, the respondent did not attend and had not presented a response. The judgment records that the respondent was notified of the hearing in accordance with rule 21(3) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal also recorded that the respondent failed to give the claimant itemised pay statements for May, June, July and August 2022, contrary to section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The tribunal found the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages well founded under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It held that there was a series of deductions within section 23(3)(a) ERA 1996, consisting of £38.61 in March 2022, £102.53 in April 2022, £1,029.17 in May 2022, £1,029.17 in June 2022, £1,029.17 in July 2022 and £475 in August 2022. The total gross sum ordered to be paid was £3,703.65.

The tribunal recorded that there was no financial loss attributable to the unlawful deduction from wages under section 24(2) ERA 1996. It also recorded that there was no unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS code of practice on grievance procedures. No separate injury to feelings or interest award is stated in the judgment.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal found a series of unlawful deductions from wages under section 13 ERA 1996, treated them as a series within section 23(3)(a) ERA 1996, and ordered payment of the gross sum of £3,703.65.	Upheld	—	£3,704
Other	The judgment records that the respondent failed to give the claimant itemised pay statements for May, June, July and August 2022 contrary to section 8 ERA 1996. No separate monetary award is stated.	Upheld	—	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £3,704; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

6 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.