Case 3301527/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Sultan Equity Fund — 2025
- Case reference
- 3301527/2024
- Decision date
- 22 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Tynan, sitting alone at Cambridge on 11 September 2025, heard the claim of Miss Rashid against Sultan Equity Fund (Sultan Asset Management BVI). The Claimant appeared in person; the Respondent did not attend and was not represented.
The Tribunal found that the Respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the Claimant's wages between 5 July 2023 and 24 November 2023 and ordered payment of £12,194.64 gross. It further found that the Respondent had failed to pay the Claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,347.91 gross. The Tribunal also found that the Claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £469.81 net of PAYE, based on weekly gross pay of £595.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant a total of £14,012.36. Reasons were given orally at the hearing; written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages between 5 July 2023 and 24 November 2023; amount stated as gross. | Upheld | — | £12,195 |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid holiday entitlement; amount stated as gross. Listed by gov.uk under Working Time Regulations. | Upheld | — | £1,348 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of £469.81 net of PAYE based on weekly gross pay of £595. | Upheld | — | £470 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,012
- 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.