Case 6036496/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D M R Rahman v Global Partners BD Ltd (t/a Wok and Fire) — 2026
- Case reference
- 6036496/2025
- Decision date
- 11 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N Wilson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D M R Rahman
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found Mr D M R Rahman's complaint of unfair dismissal under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 well-founded. It made no deduction under the principles in Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] and found that Mr Rahman did not cause or contribute to his dismissal through blameworthy conduct. The tribunal dismissed his complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages but upheld his complaint of holiday pay.
Global Partners BD Ltd was ordered to pay £9,258.52 across the successful claims. This comprised £810 for accrued but untaken holiday and £8,448.52 for unfair dismissal, consisting of a £1,832.22 basic award and a £6,616.30 compensatory award. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 applied, with a prescribed element of £6,616.30 for the period from 9 May 2025 to 11 June 2026.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £8,449 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £810 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,259
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,832
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £6,616
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987]
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.