Case 3301583/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms I Abdulnasir v Invicta Care and Training Ltd. — 2021
- Case reference
- 3301583/2020
- Decision date
- 11 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Price Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms I Abdulnasir
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the final hearing on 11 February 2021 at Watford by CVP, before Employment Judge Price, the claimant appeared in person and the respondent did not appear. The tribunal held that Ms I Abdulnasir's claim for automatic unfair dismissal under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded, and it also found her claims for breach of contract and unauthorised deduction from wages to be well founded.
The tribunal recorded that no basic award was made on the unfair dismissal claim, but it awarded a compensatory award of 455.07 together with a 25% uplift of 113.76, producing a total of 568.83 on that head. It further awarded 5434 for unpaid net wages with a 25% uplift of 1358.50, producing 6792.50, and 468 for notice pay with a 25% uplift of 117, producing 585.
The total sum due and owing by the respondent was 7946.33.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal awarded a compensatory award of 455.07 plus a 25% ACAS uplift of 113.76, with no basic award. | Upheld | — | £569 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages. The tribunal awarded unpaid net wages of 5434 plus a 25% ACAS uplift of 1358.50. | Upheld | — | £6,793 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay was awarded at 468 net plus a 25% ACAS uplift of 117. | Upheld | — | £585 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,946
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £455
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.104 ERA 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.
- 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 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.