Case 6023585/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Shah v Mr U Shafiq — 2025
- Case reference
- 6023585/2024
- Decision date
- 7 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Townley Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Shah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Shah’s claims were determined at a hearing on 7 July 2025 at East London Hearing Centre by CVP before Employment Judge Townley. The respondent, Mr U Shafiq, did not appear and was not represented. Judgment was given orally at the hearing, and the written record notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £653.95 net in respect of unauthorised deduction of wages, described in the judgment as 4 weeks' net pay. It also ordered payment of £690.00 net for accrued but untaken holiday pay, calculated as 10 days at £69 average daily net pay.
A further award of £653.95 was made for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. The total net sum ordered was £1,997.90.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal ordered payment of the net sum of £653.95 in respect of unauthorised deduction of wages, described as 4 weeks' net pay. | Upheld | — | £654 |
| Holiday pay | The Tribunal ordered payment of £690.00 for accrued but untaken holiday pay, calculated as 10 days x £69 average daily net pay. | Upheld | — | £690 |
| Other | The Tribunal ordered payment of £653.95 for failing to provide a written statement of employment particulars. | Upheld | — | £654 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,998
- 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.