Case 6002324/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Gori v Fams Group Limited t/a Mumbai7 — 2024
- Case reference
- 6002324/2024
- Decision date
- 7 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moor Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Gori
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 19 December 2024 before Employment Judge Moor, the tribunal upheld Mr N Gori’s unlawful deduction of wages complaint against Fams Group Limited t/a Mumbai7. The judgment recorded that the respondent must pay £3,859.99. The appendix to the judgment broke that sum down into £887.52 for accrued but untaken holiday, £378.91 for unpaid wages for January and part of February 2024, and £762.14 for unpaid pension contributions.
The unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed because the Claimant did not have two years of continuous service. No separate award was made for that claim. The judgment does not record any discrimination, whistleblowing, or other claims.
The tribunal also noted that the respondent’s response to the wages claim was unreasonable because it knew it had no defence, but it exercised its discretion not to make a preparation time order.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment upheld the unlawful deduction of wages complaint and ordered payment of £3,859.99. The appendix calculated this as £887.52 for accrued but untaken holiday, £378.91 for unpaid wages in January and February 2024, and £762.14 for unpaid pension contributions. | Upheld | — | £3,860 |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed because the Claimant did not have two years of continuous service. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,860
- 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.