Case 3302633/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Viccars v Aaron Mohamed/Pauline Mohamed — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302633/2024
- Decision date
- 23 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cowen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Viccars
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued by Watford Employment Tribunal on 19 July 2024. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the matter under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from Mrs K Viccars’s wages. The judgment records an award of £1,124.50 gross and states that the respondent must pay the claimant £1,124.50 in total.
No separate breakdown of the award is given, and the judgment does not record any additional remedy such as interest or costs. The decision was signed by Employment Judge Cowen on 6 January 2025 and sent to the parties on 23 January 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £1,124.50 gross. It also states that the respondent must pay the claimant £1,124.50 in total. | Upheld | — | £1,125 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,125
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.