Case 3303529/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Tribunal upholds unlawful-deduction-from-wages and breach-of-contract claims against Tunku Ousmand
Judgment was entered for the claimant on that basis under the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The written decision does not set out the substantive facts of the dispute or any monetary assessment.
- Case reference
- 3303529/2019
- Decision date
- 26 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Henry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D El Magowry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Henry issued a Rule 21 judgment after the Respondent, Tunku Ousmand, failed to enter a response to Miss D El Magowry's claim. Judgment was entered for the claimant on that basis under the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The written decision does not set out the substantive facts of the dispute or any monetary assessment. It states that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled will be determined at a separate Remedy Hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The written judgment only states that judgment is entered for the claimant under Rule 21 and does not identify the pleaded heads of claim; this claim type is inferred from the gov.uk listing categories. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written judgment only states that judgment is entered for the claimant under Rule 21 and does not identify the pleaded heads of claim; this claim type is inferred from the gov.uk listing categories. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the 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.