Case 6028607/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Sarath KS v Dr Anwar Ansari — 2026
- Case reference
- 6028607/2025
- Decision date
- 22 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Sarath KS
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Tsamados, sitting alone at London South by CVP on 22 January 2026, found the claimant's complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded. The respondent had entered no response and did not attend the hearing. The claimant appeared in person.
The tribunal awarded £634.92 gross in respect of 52 hours' work at £12.21 per hour, being the National Living Wage then in force. In addition, the tribunal made an award of £976.80 gross under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 as compensation for the respondent's failure to provide written particulars of employment at the start of the claimant's employment, calculated as two weeks' pay at 40 hours per week multiplied by £12.21 per hour.
The total award of compensation was £1,611.72 gross.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded £634.92 gross for 52 hours' work at £12.21 per hour (National Living Wage). | Upheld | — | £635 |
| Other | Section 38 Employment Act 2002 award (two weeks' pay at 40 hours x £12.21) for failure to provide written particulars of employment. Not within the locked claim_type enum, so classified as 'other'. | Upheld | — | £977 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,612
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 38 of the Employment Act 2002
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.