Case 6010659/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M D Aboua v West London College Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6010659/2024
- Decision date
- 21 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M D Aboua
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's claim in respect of unauthorised deductions in 2017 because it was out of time.
The tribunal found that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in the period August 2021 to July 2024. The judgment records that the amount of the unauthorised deduction was repaid to the claimant in May 2024 and August 2024, and ordered the respondent to pay £92.97 for financial loss attributable to the unauthorised deduction.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim in respect of unauthorised deductions in 2017 was dismissed as out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages in the period August 2021 to July 2024. The deducted amount had been repaid before judgment; the award was compensation for financial loss attributable to the unauthorised deduction. | Upheld | — | £93 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £93
- 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.