Case 6003425/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Ali v Advance Secured Solutions Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 6003425/2024
- Decision date
- 16 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Ali
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Gardiner, sitting alone at East London Hearing Centre by Cloud Video Platform on 16 September 2024, considered Mr M Ali's claim against Advance Secured Solutions Limited. The Claimant appeared in person and the Respondent was represented by Mr Bilal Mustafa, an employee of the Respondent company.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant's claim for unauthorised deduction of wages under Section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded, and ordered the Respondent to pay £4,176 gross in respect of unpaid earnings. The Tribunal further held that the Claimant was entitled to two weeks' pay under Section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 because the Respondent had not provided him with a statement of employment particulars, awarding £648 (two weeks at £324 gross per week).
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996 for unauthorised deduction of wages; £4176 gross awarded in respect of unpaid earnings. | Upheld | — | £4,176 |
| Other | Award under s.38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a statement of employment particulars; two weeks' pay at £324 gross per week. | Upheld | — | £648 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,824
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.