Case 3308063/2023 · Employment Tribunal
S Smith (lay representative) For the v J Syed (director of respondent) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3308063/2023
- Decision date
- 16 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
S Smith (lay representative) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Watford by CVP on 25 March 2024, Employment Judge Anderson recorded that the parties were in agreement that the respondent owed the claimant £249.11 in unpaid wages. The amount was calculated using an hourly rate of £5.28 and comprised 17.18 hours' holiday pay and one week's notice pay (30 hours). The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £249.11, less any deductions for tax or national insurance, within 14 days of the order being sent to the parties.
The claimant's unlawful deduction from wages claim relating to weekly hours worked was dismissed on withdrawal. The written record does not allocate the £249.11 between the holiday-pay and notice-pay elements, and no other remedy was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal recorded that, by agreement, the respondent owed the claimant £249.11 in unpaid wages. The figure was calculated at £5.28 per hour and comprised 17.18 hours' holiday pay and one week's notice pay (30 hours). The operative paragraph does not split the award between separate legal heads. | Upheld | — | £249 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant's claim of unlawful deduction from wages relating to the weekly hours worked was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £249
- across all upheld claims
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.