Case 6024149/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Rajesh Kapoor v Kuwait Airways Company — 2026
- Case reference
- 6024149/2025
- Decision date
- 26 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Michell Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Rajesh Kapoor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the Respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the Claimant's wages contrary to s.13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and that the complaint was well founded. The judgment was given by Employment Judge Michell sitting at Watford Employment Tribunal on 26 February 2026, with Ms Thomas appearing as counsel for the Claimant and Mr Healey as solicitor for the Respondent.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant £3,345.38 (gross). That figure comprises £2,676.30 in unauthorised deductions plus a 25% uplift on that amount, applied on the basis of the Respondent's unreasonable failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice.
This was a short-form judgment without written reasons; written reasons were not provided and would only be issued on a party's written request within 14 days. No further factual findings, legal analysis or other claims are recorded in the available text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996 found well founded. Award comprises £2,676.30 in unauthorised deductions plus a 25% ACAS uplift for the Respondent's unreasonable failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice. | Upheld | — | £3,345 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,345
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- ACAS Code of Practice (25% uplift)
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.