Case 6006769/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ali Sarfraz v Wiseguys Pizzeria Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6006769/2025
- Decision date
- 27 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ali Sarfraz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Hawksworth determined this Rule 22 default judgment in the South East Employment Tribunal, the respondent (Wiseguys Pizzeria Limited) having failed to present a valid response on time. The claim was presented on 27 February 2025.
The Judge found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages of £1,192 (gross) in respect of pay due in October and November 2024, failed to give the claimant notice of termination (entitling him to one week's net pay damages of £210), and failed to pay £444.87 (gross) for 1.94 days of holiday accrued but untaken at termination. The respondent was ordered to pay the total sum of £1,846.87 (£1,636.87 gross plus £210 net).
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions in respect of pay due in October and November 2024 (£1,192 gross). | Upheld | — | £1,192 |
| Breach of contract | Damages for failure to give notice of termination - one week's net pay (£210 net). | Upheld | — | £210 |
| Holiday pay | 1.94 days holiday accrued but untaken at termination of employment (£444.87 gross). | Upheld | — | £445 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,847
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
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.