Case 3302665/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v T Hussain (litigation consultant) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302665/2023
- Decision date
- 13 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge W Anderson
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- G Bhatt, S Holford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld the claimant's claim that the first respondent failed to provide an itemised pay slip under s8(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. It declared that the first respondent failed to comply because the claimant was paid weekly but received an itemised pay slip monthly.
The tribunal made no award for unnotified deductions under s12(4) Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant's claims of direct race discrimination and harassment related to race were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment upheld a claim for failure to provide an itemised pay slip under s8(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. The taxonomy has no specific written pay statement enum, so this is classified as other. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal made no award for unnotified deductions under s12(4) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment describes this as harassment related to race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s8(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s12(4) 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.