Case 3314854/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mrs G Mohammed, Solicitor — 2020
- Case reference
- 3314854/2019
- Decision date
- 29 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Watford on 29 January 2020, Employment Judge R Lewis recorded that the claimant, Miss S Amin, was entitled to six days' arrears of pay at the agreed net daily rate of £105.14, making £630.84. The judgment also awarded 12.5 days' holiday pay at the same rate, totalling £1,314.25.
The judgment records that notice pay was dealt with by consent, with the claimant entitled to the agreed net sum of £262.84. No further dispute is set out in the written record on that item.
The tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay four weeks' pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 because written particulars had not been issued, awarding £2,102.76. The total payable under the judgment was £4,310.69. The written record gives the figures and statutory basis for the award, but no fuller reasons because oral reasons had been given at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Six days' arrears of pay were awarded at the agreed net daily rate of £105.14. | Upheld | — | £631 |
| Holiday pay | 12.5 days' holiday pay were awarded at the same agreed net daily rate of £105.14. | Upheld | — | £1,314 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay was agreed by consent and paid at the net sum recorded in the judgment. | Settled | — | £263 |
| Other | Four weeks' pay was ordered under section 38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to issue written particulars. | Upheld | — | £2,103 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,311
- 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.