Case 3304748/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Gauriya v Arif Parvez — 2025
- Case reference
- 3304748/2024
- Decision date
- 8 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Gauriya
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the South East Employment Tribunal on 9 May 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and Employment Judge Tynan determined the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure on the basis of the papers.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorized deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £2,667.67 gross. The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered the respondent to pay damages of £2,667.67. The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,230.77.
The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Tynan on 2 April 2025 and sent to the parties on 8 May 2025.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found unauthorized deductions from wages; awarded £2,667.67 gross under rule 22 determination after respondent failed to file a valid response. | Upheld | — | £2,668 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract regarding notice; damages of £2,667.67 awarded. | Upheld | — | £2,668 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay claimant's holiday entitlement; £1,230.77 awarded. | Upheld | — | £1,231 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,566
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.