Case 3319953/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Y Asfedai, representative For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3319953/2019
- Decision date
- 11 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Y Asfedai, representative For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Hyams sat alone at Watford on 11 March 2020. By agreement, the first respondent's name was changed to MJB Security Solutions Limited. The claim was dismissed against the second respondent.
The tribunal found that the first respondent unlawfully deducted £4,536 gross from the claimant's wages by failing to pay him. It also ordered the first respondent to pay £60 for overdraft charges incurred because of that non-payment.
In addition, the tribunal awarded the claimant one week's pay of £540 gross as damages for breach of contract.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The first respondent was found to have failed to pay the claimant £4,536 gross in wages. The tribunal also ordered £60 for overdraft charges caused by the non-payment. | Upheld | — | £4,596 |
| Breach of contract | The first respondent was ordered to pay one week's pay by way of damages for breach of contract, assessed at £540 gross. | Upheld | — | £540 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,136
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.