Case 6036026/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ahmed Salum v La Cappucinosa Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6036026/2025
- Decision date
- 11 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Povey Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ahmed Salum
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not attend and, in default of the claim being responded to, the tribunal ordered La Cappucinosa Limited to pay Ahmed Salum £5,479.27. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment records the monetary heads of award rather than detailed written reasons.
The sums awarded were £2,640.00 for unpaid wages, calculated as 24 days at £110 per day, and £749.27 for unauthorised deductions from wages. The tribunal also awarded £1,540.00 for unpaid holiday pay, calculated as 14 days at £110 per day.
The tribunal further awarded £550.00 for unpaid notice pay, calculated as one week or five days at £110 per day. The total award recorded in the judgment was £5,479.27, with no separate award for interest or other remedy component stated.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Default judgment awarded £2,640.00 for unpaid wages and £749.27 for unauthorised deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £3,389 |
| Holiday pay | Default judgment awarded unpaid holiday pay for 14 days at £110 per day. | Upheld | — | £1,540 |
| Breach of contract | Default judgment awarded unpaid notice pay for one week/five days at £110 per day. | Upheld | — | £550 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,479
- 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.