Case 3324798/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Khoshdel, counsel For the v Mr E Eliaz, director — 2021
- Case reference
- 3324798/2019
- Decision date
- 29 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Khoshdel, counsel For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found the claimant's complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages well founded. It ordered the respondent to pay £131.31 for a shortfall in notice pay.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. In its remedy calculation, it assessed the basic award at £787.86 and deducted a redundancy payment of £525.44, leaving £262.42. It then calculated compensatory loss from the effective date of termination of 1 August 2019, using 26 weeks less 4 weeks' notice at £131.31 per week, adding £131.31 for loss of statutory rights, and then applying a 50% deduction for the chance that the claimant would have been made redundant in any event. That produced a compensatory award of £1,510.07 and a total unfair dismissal award of £1,772.49.
The total award for both claims was £1,903.80.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found a shortfall in notice pay and awarded £131.31. | Upheld | — | £131 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal awarded a basic award of £262.42 and compensatory award of £1,510.07, giving a total unfair dismissal award of £1,772.49. | Upheld | — | £1,772 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,904
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £262
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,510
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.