Case 3311544/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr D H Jamali — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311544/2023
- Decision date
- 15 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hunt Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at Watford by CVP on 5 June 2024 before Employment Judge Hunt, determined a single claim for unauthorised deduction from wages brought by Mr H Reynolds against Haar Bros Limited. It found, in accordance with Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996, that the claim was well-founded.
The Tribunal found that the Respondent had failed to pay the wages properly payable to the Claimant for the period 11 April 2023 to 9 June 2023. The gross sum identified as due was £1,456.24, and that figure is the monetary amount recorded in the judgment.
The decision was given orally at the hearing, and the written record notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal held the claim well-founded under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and found the Respondent had failed to pay wages properly payable for 11 April 2023 to 9 June 2023 in the gross sum of £1,456.24. | Upheld | — | £1,456 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,456
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.