Case 4100432/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M. Lamjafjaf v City Facilities Management (UK) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4100432/2020
- Decision date
- 11 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McNeill QC
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr P. Miller, Mr N. Ramgolam
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M. Lamjafjaf
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge McNeill QC, sitting with Mr P. Miller and Mr N. Ramgolam, dismissed the claimant's application to strike out the response. The tribunal also refused the claimant's oral application, made at the start of the hearing, to amend his claim to include disability discrimination.
The respondent conceded the claimant's claims for unpaid wages and expenses. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a total of £1,132.69, made up of £911.80 for an unpaid London Weighting Allowance, £116.55 for unpaid overtime and £104.34 for unpaid expenses. The judgment records that the London Weighting Allowance and overtime figures are gross figures from which tax may need to be deducted.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claim that he was subjected to detriments by the respondent on the ground that he had made protected disclosures, contrary to section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also dismissed the claimant's claim for automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which alleged that the reason or principal reason for his dismissal was that he had made a protected disclosure. Reasons were given orally, and the written judgment records that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent conceded the claims for unpaid wages and expenses. The wages figure is made up of £911.80 for unpaid London Weighting Allowance and £116.55 for unpaid overtime; the judgment states these are gross figures from which tax may need to be deducted. | Upheld | — | £1,028 |
| Breach of contract | Treated as the unpaid expenses element because the listing includes breach of contract and the judgment separately records £104.34 in unpaid expenses, conceded by the respondent. | Upheld | — | £104 |
| Whistleblowing | The claim under section 47B ERA that the claimant was subjected to detriments on the ground that he had made protected disclosures was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claim for automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA, on the grounds that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was that the claimant had made a protected disclosure, was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,133
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.