Case 4100256/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Connor Mackay v Aneesa Amjad and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 4100256/2019
- Decision date
- 21 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge I McFatridge
- Venue
- Dundee
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Connor Mackay
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought connected claims for unlawful deduction of wages arising out of work at Maza Restaurant in Perth. He gave evidence alone, and neither respondent presented a response. The tribunal found that he had been engaged by Aneesa Amjad around 31 July 2018, that all of his dealings about work and payment were with her, and that she was his employer. It accepted his evidence that he was to be paid at the National Minimum Wage rate of £7.38 per hour, that he worked 290 hours and 27 minutes, and that he received cash payments totalling £129.40.
On that evidence, the tribunal found that the claimant had been entitled to £2,143.52 and that £2,014.12 had been unlawfully withheld at the end of the employment, which ended on 25 September 2018. It therefore ordered Aneesa Amjad to pay £2,014.12 in respect of wages unlawfully withheld. So far as the claim was brought against Maza Indian Buffet Restaurant, the tribunal dismissed it because that name was only the restaurant address/name and did not have legal personality.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the first respondent, Aneesa Amjad, was the claimant's employer and had withheld wages. It ordered payment of £2,014.12. | Upheld | — | £2,014 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | So far as the claim was directed against Maza Indian Buffet Restaurant, the tribunal dismissed it because the entity was only the restaurant name/address and had no legal personality. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,014
- 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.