Case 3301820/2025 · Employment Tribunal

(1) Mr I Ullah (2) Mr A Khattak v Advanced Secured Solutions Ltd; and 1 other — 2025

Case reference: 3301820/2025
Decision date: 21 October 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge George Representation
Venue: Reading

Indexed: 17 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

(1) Mr I Ullah (2) Mr A Khattak

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Employment Judge George heard the joined claims of Mr I Ullah and Mr A Khattak at Reading on 21 October 2025. The Second Respondent (MPD FM Limited) was granted an extension of time to 18 July 2025 to present a response, and the Claimants' emails of 26 June 2025 were treated as applications to amend their claims to add complaints of holiday pay on termination, which were permitted. The claims against the Second Respondent by both Claimants were dismissed on withdrawal.

The First Respondent (Advanced Secured Solutions Ltd) did not attend and failed to present a valid response on time. The Judge determined the claim against the First Respondent in accordance with rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2025. The First Respondent was ordered to pay the First Claimant £4,220 for unauthorised deduction from wages and £1,337.50 for accrued but untaken holiday pay, and to pay the Second Claimant £5,386.00 for unauthorised deduction from wages and £2,337.50 for accrued but untaken holiday pay, all figures calculated before deductions for tax or national insurance.

Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days. The written record does not contain any adjudication of a protected disclosure (whistleblowing) complaint referenced on the gov.uk listing.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	Award against the First Respondent only: £4,220 to the First Claimant and £5,386.00 to the Second Claimant, both before deductions for tax or national insurance. Determined under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2025 after the First Respondent failed to present a valid response on time.	Upheld	—	£9,606
Holiday pay	Claimants were permitted to amend their claims (per their 26 June 2025 emails) to add a complaint of holiday pay accrued but not taken on termination. Award against the First Respondent only: £1,337.50 to the First Claimant and £2,337.50 to the Second Claimant, before tax/NI deductions.	Upheld	—	£3,675
Whistleblowing	The gov.uk listing referenced Public Interest Disclosure, but the written judgment does not adjudicate any whistleblowing/protected disclosure complaint. The judgment text does not mention a determination on this head of claim, so its status cannot be reliably stated from this document.	Other	—	—
Other	All claims brought by both Claimants against the Second Respondent (MPD FM Limited) were dismissed on withdrawal.	Withdrawn	—	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £13,281; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

1 reference

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.