Case 3306765/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Mariam Sorour v Ms Obi Odogwu — 2022
- Case reference
- 3306765/2021
- Decision date
- 17 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau JUDGMENT
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Mariam Sorour
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mrs Mariam Sorour was employed by Ms Obi Odogwu as an Administrator rather than working on a commission-only basis. It found that the parties discussed hourly pay by telephone on 27 April 2021, initially £8 and then agreed £9 an hour, together with working hours of 10.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday. The tribunal accepted that the claimant worked regular hours at the respondent’s home office, followed the respondent’s instructions, and carried out administrative tasks, including selling property online and checking tenants’ meters.
The respondent’s case that the claimant had agreed to work only on commission was rejected. The tribunal noted that there was no written contract and that the respondent could not explain what commission percentage had allegedly been agreed. It also relied on the respondent’s message of 10 May 2021, which referred to the claimant not giving notice and said she would not be paid until a replacement was found. The tribunal treated that message as consistent with employee status and with an acknowledgment that the claimant was entitled to be paid.
Applying section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and section 86(2) on notice, the tribunal concluded that there had been an unauthorised deduction from wages. It found that the claimant had worked 41 hours at £9 per hour, making £369 gross, and ordered the respondent to pay that sum. The claimant was directed to account for any income tax and national insurance deductions on the award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found a contract of employment existed, accepted that the claimant worked 41 hours at £9 per hour, and ordered the respondent to pay £369 gross. | Upheld | — | £369 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £369
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.86(2) 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.