Case 6007423/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Seyed Parsa Pishdad v Cloud Systems Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007423/2024
- Decision date
- 20 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Balroop Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Seyed Parsa Pishdad
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Cloud Systems Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in the period 1 May 2024 to 31 May 2024. It held that the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay £2,083.33, described as the gross sum deducted. The tribunal recorded that the claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance due on that sum.
The tribunal also found the holiday pay complaint well-founded. It held that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay the claimant for holidays that had accrued but not been taken when the employment ended. It ordered payment of £1,105.77, again noting that the claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance.
The total amount the respondent was ordered to pay was £3,909.06. The decision was given orally at the hearing, and the written record states that no written reasons would be provided unless requested in accordance with the note appended to the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded in respect of the period 1 May to 31 May 2024. | Upheld | — | £2,083 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the holiday pay complaint well-founded because the respondent failed to pay for holidays accrued but untaken when employment ended. | Upheld | — | £1,106 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,909
- 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.