Case 3303480/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr Reehan Chaudhry (Solicitor Advocate) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303480/2024
- Decision date
- 15 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Lewis KC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found the unlawful deduction of wages claim well founded for the period from 25 January 2024 to 30 April 2024 and ordered Royal Mail Group Limited to pay £7,227.63, described as the shortfall in gross pay for the notice period. The same claim failed for the earlier period from 3 December 2023 to 24 January 2024.
The unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal ordered a basic award of £10,263.57, having reduced the pre-reduction figure of £12,074.79 by 15% for contributory conduct under s.122(2) ERA 1996. The calculation was based on gross weekly pay of £619.22 and a multiplier of 19.5, reflecting 16 full years of service, 7 of which were over age 41.
The compensatory award was not finally determined in this judgment. The tribunal recorded that it would be decided at a remedy hearing if not agreed, and that any compensatory award would be reduced by 15% for contributory fault under s.123(6) ERA 1996.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was well founded for the period 25 January 2024 to 30 April 2024, in respect of which the Respondent was ordered to pay £7,227.63 as the shortfall in gross pay for the notice period. It failed for the period 3 December 2023 to 24 January 2024. | Upheld | — | £7,228 |
| Unfair dismissal | The claim succeeded. The tribunal ordered a basic award of £10,263.57 after a 15% reduction for contributory conduct under s.122(2) ERA 1996. The compensatory award was to be determined at a remedy hearing if not agreed and would also be subject to a 15% reduction for contributory fault under s.123(6) ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £10,264 |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) 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.
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.