Case 3312633/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Williams, Legal Officer For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3312633/2022
- Decision date
- 3 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr G Williams, Legal Officer For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Watford, sitting by CVP on 2 and 3 October 2023 before Employment Judge G D Davison, held that the claims for unlawful deduction of wages were well-founded and allowed them. The written record does not give detailed reasons because reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the note records that written reasons would only be provided if requested.
The judgment sets out the gross amounts payable to each claimant as service payments: Anna-Marie Game £180, Kevan Shannon £613, Derrick Peart £323, Imran Qasim £470, and Syed Ali Jaffar Zaidi £323. No further breakdown of the calculation is given in the written record.
On the material provided, there were five separate claimant claims under case numbers 3312633/2022 to 3312637/2022, and each succeeded on the unlawful deduction of wages claim. The total of the gross amounts recorded in the judgment is £1,909.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross service payment awarded to Anna-Marie Game. | Upheld | — | £180 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross service payment awarded to Kevan Shannon. | Upheld | — | £613 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross service payment awarded to Derrick Peart. | Upheld | — | £323 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross service payment awarded to Imran Qasim. | Upheld | — | £470 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross service payment awarded to Syed Ali Jaffar Zaidi. | Upheld | — | £323 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,909
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 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.