Case 3309633/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ayman Soliman v Eazynet Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3309633/2022
- Decision date
- 25 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Partington Date
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ayman Soliman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn a judgment issued under rule 60, the Employment Tribunal at Reading dealt with Ayman Soliman's claims against Eazynet Limited for unlawful deduction from wages and holiday pay. The case was heard by CVP on 3 July 2023 before Employment Judge Partington. The respondent did not appear.
The tribunal held that both claims were well-founded and succeeded. It ordered the respondent to pay £1,900 gross in respect of wages and £876.92 gross in respect of 10 days' accrued but untaken holiday. The judgment directed that relevant deductions for tax and national insurance be made from those payments and accounted for to HMRC.
The judgment does not record any additional liability findings, legal reasoning, or further remedy beyond those two gross sums. The total monetary award on the face of the decision is £2,776.92.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal said the claim for unlawful deduction from wages was well-founded and succeeded. It ordered payment of a gross sum of £1,900 in respect of wages, subject to deductions for tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £1,900 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal said the holiday pay claim was well-founded and succeeded. It ordered payment of a gross sum of £876.92 in respect of 10 days accrued but untaken holiday, subject to deductions for tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £877 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,777
- 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.