Case 6001378/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Muhammad Arslan v Passive Tax Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 6001378/2024
- Decision date
- 23 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Muhammad Arslan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 29 March 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Heap made a Rule 21 judgment determining part of the claim on the papers. The judgment records that the parties were Muhammad Arslan and Passive Tax Limited.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £6,428.57 gross. It also found that Mr Arslan was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £3,000.00 in damages.
The tribunal further found that Mr Arslan was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,286.00. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £830.75. The total payable was £11,545.33.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Determined under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £6,429 |
| Breach of contract | Awarded as damages for notice after the tribunal found dismissal in breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £3,000 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £1,286 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £831 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,545
- 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.