Case 6016987/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Aly v Recovery NLR Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 6016987/2024
- Decision date
- 1 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Aly
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented to the Employment Tribunal on 1 November 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages for the period 13 September 2024 to 3 October 2024, and ordered the respondent to pay £1,300 gross in unpaid wages. The tribunal also found that the respondent had breached its duty under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to provide full and accurate written particulars of employment, and awarded the claimant £1,400, representing two weeks' pay subject to the statutory maximum of £700 per week.
The tribunal noted that it does not have the power to make an award of compensation for stress.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages for the period 13 September 2024 to 3 October 2024; respondent ordered to pay £1,300 gross in unpaid wages. | Upheld | — | £1,300 |
| Other | Breach of duty under section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996 to provide full and accurate written particulars of employment; award of two weeks' pay (£700 per week statutory maximum). | Upheld | — | £1,400 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,700
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.