Ms Lula Abawary v Paypacket Limited and 1 other — 2026

The tribunal found that Paypacket Ltd had no employment relationship with Ms Lula Abawary and acted only as Mr Ashley Isiko's payroll management agency. It found that Mr Isiko was the claimant's employer for all relevant purposes and dismissed Paypacket Ltd from the proceedings.

Ms Abawary did not attend the hearing, but the tribunal determined her claims from her documentary evidence, including payslips and a detailed Schedule of Loss. Mr Isiko had not filed an ET3 response. The tribunal declined his postponement request because the material provided did not establish that the patient identified was his daughter or that she required his presence, and because Rule 22 restricted his participation in the absence of an ET3.

The tribunal found the claimant's evidence sufficient to establish unpaid wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and unpaid holiday pay contrary to regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. Both claims succeeded against Mr Isiko, who was ordered to pay a total of £725.78; the judgment did not apportion that sum between the two claims.