Case 3300430/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Bader v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3300430/2022
- Decision date
- 22 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JUDGMENT
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr O Bader
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was determined on the basis that the respondent's time for presenting a response had expired and no valid response had been presented. On the information before Employment Judge M Warren, the tribunal found that O’Carroll Geospatial Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr O Bader's wages. The judgment records that £2,010.77 was payable for 15 days worked and unpaid at £115 per day, together with £285.77 expenses.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in respect of notice. Damages of £575 were awarded for that claim, described as one week's pay. The judgment states that the total payable under the judgment, without deduction and taxable in the hands of the claimant, was £2,585.77. It also notes that no claim for holiday pay was made in the claim form and that no compensation for future loss was recoverable under these heads of claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £2,010.77, described as 15 days worked and unpaid at £115 per day plus £285.77 expenses. | Upheld | — | £2,011 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in respect of notice and awarded damages of £575, described as one week's pay. | Upheld | — | £575 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,586
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.86 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.