Case 3312338/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Abbate v Mouiz Mohammad Rana — 2024
- Case reference
- 3312338/2023
- Decision date
- 2 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Abbate
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn a Rule 21 judgment, Employment Judge Anstis dismissed the claimant’s unfair dismissal and redundancy payment claims because the claimant did not have sufficient length of service for either claim. The judgment does not record any other basis for those dismissals.
The tribunal upheld the claimant’s wages claim, finding that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordering payment of £2,500 gross. It also upheld a breach of contract claim and ordered the respondent to pay £700 as compensation for that claim.
The judgment does not set out any separate award structure beyond those two sums. Taken together, the monetary orders amount to £3,200.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed on the basis that the claimant did not have sufficient length of service for the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed on the basis that the claimant did not have sufficient length of service for such a claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent was found to have made unauthorised deductions from wages and was ordered to pay £2,500 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,500 |
| Breach of contract | The respondent was ordered to pay £700 as compensation for breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £700 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,200
- 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.