Case 3331421/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Haj Salah v Reading Town Chicken Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3331421/2018
- Decision date
- 10 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Haj Salah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 28 February 2019, the claimant’s claims were identified as unpaid wages of £546.25 and holiday pay of £380, said to correspond respectively to 57.5 hours unpaid wages and 40 hours of holiday pay at £9.50 per hour. The hearing on 10 January 2020 proceeded in the absence of both parties, who had been notified and reminded of the hearing, and no application to adjourn had been received.
The tribunal proceeded under rule 47. The material before it consisted of the claim form and the respondent’s grounds of resistance. The claim form suggested that the claimant had not been paid, but it did not provide a basis on which the tribunal could conclude the amount of any non-payment or address holiday pay. The respondent said that the claimant had claimed pay for shifts he had not worked and had not returned his uniform.
The tribunal held that it was for the claimant to prove entitlement to unpaid wages or holiday pay, and on the material before it he had not done so. Both claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was identified at a preliminary hearing as unpaid wages of £546.25, said to represent 57.5 hours at £9.50 per hour. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim was identified at a preliminary hearing as holiday pay of £380, said to represent 40 hours at £9.50 per hour. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.