Case 6020832/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Maryam Agha v Halil Ibrahim Bacaci — 2025
- Case reference
- 6020832/2024
- Decision date
- 15 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lumby REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Maryam Agha
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Maryam Agha brought claims against Halil Ibrahim Bacaci for unauthorised deductions from wages and holiday pay. The case was heard at Croydon by CVP on 16 April 2025. The respondent did not attend. Employment Judge Lumby gave oral reasons at the hearing, with the written record sent to the parties on 15 May 2025.
The tribunal found that the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded. It held that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in the period 29 June 2024 to 27 September 2024. The respondent was ordered to pay £13,315.08, described as the gross sum deducted, and a further £200 to compensate the claimant for financial loss attributable to the unauthorised deduction.
The holiday pay complaint was dismissed. No separate holiday pay award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages in the period 29 June 2024 to 27 September 2024. It ordered payment of £13,315.08 as the gross sum deducted and a further £200 for financial loss attributable to the deduction. | Upheld | — | £13,515 |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay complaint was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,515
- 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.