Case 3310665/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr Khan, director — 2022
- Case reference
- 3310665/2021
- Decision date
- 14 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Skehan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages contrary to s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996. The deductions were identified as relating to salary, overtime and accrued but untaken holiday pay. The judgment records that the parties had agreed the net sum payable, and the respondent was ordered to pay £710 within 14 days of the judgment.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to comply with s.8 Employment Rights Act 1996 by not providing a sufficiently itemised pay statement. Although that breach was upheld, the tribunal made no further monetary award in respect of it. No discrimination, dismissal or whistleblowing findings were recorded in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages under s.13 ERA 1996 in respect of salary, overtime and accrued but untaken holiday pay, and ordered payment of the agreed net sum of £710 within 14 days. | Upheld | — | £710 |
| Other | The tribunal found a breach of s.8 ERA 1996 because the respondent failed to provide a sufficiently itemised pay statement. No further monetary award was made for this breach. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £710
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.8 ERA 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.