Case 6042652/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Asan Mohamed v Brix LDN — 2026
- Case reference
- 6042652/2025
- Decision date
- 30 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cawthray
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Asan Mohamed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAsan Mohamed presented the claim against Brix LDN Limited in the London South Employment Tribunal on 19 November 2025. The respondent did not present a valid response on time. After receiving further information from Mr Mohamed, Employment Judge Cawthray decided that the claim, or part of it, could properly be determined under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The Tribunal found that Brix LDN Limited had made unauthorised deductions from Mr Mohamed’s wages in respect of basic pay and accrued but unused holiday. It ordered the respondent to pay £574.72 gross, subject to deduction of any tax or PAYE due. The judgment did not apportion that sum between basic pay and holiday pay.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The £574.72 gross award was made jointly for unauthorised deductions relating to basic pay and accrued but unused holiday; the judgment did not apportion the award between the claims. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The £574.72 gross award was made jointly for unauthorised deductions relating to basic pay and accrued but unused holiday; the judgment did not apportion the award between the claims. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £575
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.