Case 6009135/2026 · Employment Tribunal
Florence Sabry v Kego Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6009135/2026
- Decision date
- 13 August 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Florence Sabry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found Florence Sabry's complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded. Kego Limited made an unauthorised deduction from her wages during the three weeks to 28 September 2025 and was ordered to pay her £567.77. Sabry is responsible for any applicable tax or National Insurance.
Judgment was given under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The tribunal had received no response by the deadline of 25 May 2026, and no extension of time had been requested or granted. The final hearing listed for 29 September 2026 was taken out of the list, and the parties were told they would not attend.
The accompanying notice specifies interest at 8% per annum, with a calculation day of 25 August 2026. No interest is payable if the award is paid in full within 14 days after 24 August 2026, when the judgment was sent to the parties. No monetary interest amount was stated.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £568 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £568
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 22, Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 17(1), Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (response)
- Rule 21, Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (applications for extension of time for presenting response)
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.