Mr T F Farshtchi v Prokil Ltd — 2024

Case reference: 3310580/2023
Decision date: 10 September 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Bansal Representation

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr T F Farshtchi

Respondent

Prokil Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a hearing at Watford by CVP on 22 July 2024, before Employment Judge Bansal, the tribunal dealt with two claims brought by Mr T F Farshtchi against Prokil Ltd. The first was a complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages. The tribunal held that complaint was not well founded and dismissed it.

The second claim was for unpaid expenses. That claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons were provided unless requested in accordance with the note on the judgment form.

No monetary award was made. The judgment does not record any split of compensation or any remedy calculation, only the dismissal of the wages complaint and the withdrawal disposal of the expenses claim.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal found the complaint that the Respondent made unauthorised deduction from wages was not well founded.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	The judgment records a separate claim for unpaid expenses, which was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant.	Withdrawn	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.