Case 3333302/2018 · Employment Tribunal
No v Fatholan Namani — 2019
- Case reference
- 3333302/2018
- Decision date
- 18 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bartlett
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Price succeeded in her claim for unlawful deductions from wages under s.13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal awarded £323.17 on that head. The judgment also records that the respondent conceded one week's notice pay of £323.17, and the tribunal awarded a further nine weeks' notice pay, making 10 weeks' unpaid notice pay in total and a sum of £3,231.70.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unlawful deductions from wages contrary to s.13 ERA 1996 in the amount of £323.17. | Upheld | — | £323 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found unfair dismissal and awarded a basic award of £3,707, a compensatory award of £1,292.68, and £250 for loss of statutory rights arising from the dismissal. | Upheld | — | £5,250 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment awards 10 weeks' unpaid notice pay totalling £3,231.70; the claim type is inferred from the notice pay award. | Upheld | — | £3,232 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,805
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,707
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,293
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- Iceland Frozen Foods
- Post Office v Foley
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets v Hitt
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
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.