Case 6029057/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Z Turk v Gholamreza AghaBabaei and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 6029057/2025
- Decision date
- 10 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer Attendances
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M Z Turk
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed Mr M Z Turk's breach of contract complaint as not well founded, finding that he was employed to work 18 hours per week at £12.25 per hour. It also dismissed his complaint of unlawful deduction from wages. Persian Fast Food Limited, the second respondent, did not employ the claimant, and all claims against it were dismissed.
The tribunal found that Gholamreza AghaBabaei, the first respondent, failed to pay the claimant for two days of accrued but untaken holiday and awarded £147. It also found that the first respondent failed to provide a written statement of particulars. Considering it just and equitable because the dispute could have been entirely avoided had the statement been provided, the tribunal awarded four weeks' wages of £880. The total payable by the first respondent was £1,029.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The complaint was not well founded. The tribunal found that the claimant was employed for 18 hours per week at £12.25 per hour. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The first respondent failed to pay the claimant for two days of accrued but untaken holiday. | Upheld | — | £147 |
| Other | Failure by the first respondent to provide a written statement of particulars; the tribunal awarded four weeks' wages. | Upheld | — | £880 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,029
- 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.