M Akram v The Furzedown: 2301790/2022
JUDGMENT
The complaint of Unfair Dismissal is struck out.REASONS
[1]By a letter dated 11 July 2022 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or to request a hearing, as to why the complaint of Unfair Dismissal should not be struck out because• The claimant lacked the qualifying two years to bring such a claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or any circumstances that allowed the claimant to bring a claim of automatic unfair dismissal[2]The claimant has failed to make any sufficient representations why this should not be done or to request a hearing. The complaint of Unfair Dismissal is therefore struck out.[3]The claimant’s remaining claims remain listed for hearing on 12 January 2023 _____________________________ Employment Judge Reed Date: 14 November 2022 Sent to the parties on Date: 23 November 2022 Case No. 2301790/2022 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Mustafa Akram Respondent: Furzedown Group Limited a.k.a Furzedown Group Held At: London South (Remotely by CVP) On: 12 January 2023 Before: Employment Judge Cox Representation: Claimant: Respondent: In person Non-attendance[1]The name of the respondent is amended to ‘Furzedown Group Limited a.k.a Furzedown Group’.[2]The respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages by failing to pay the claimant the full amount of wages due for the period 1 February 2022 until 7 March 2022 and is ordered to pay to the claimant £4,687.50 gross being the sum withheld.[3]The respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay the claimant in lieu of accrued but untaken annual leave on termination of employment and is ordered to pay to the claimant £2,546.00 gross being the sum due.[4]The respondent was in breach of contract by dismissing the claimant without notice and the respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant damages of £3,125 for that breach. ________________________ Employment Judge Cox Date: 12 January 2023 Sent to the parties on Date: 23 January 2023 Note Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. Case No: 2301790/2022 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Mustafa Akram Respondent: The Furzedown Group Limited a.k.a. The Furzedown Group CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Under the provisions of Rule 69, the Judgment sent to the parties on 23 January 2023 is corrected by amending the name of the Respondent to insert the word ‘The’ before the name of the entity wherever it appears in the heading and in the body of the judgment: i.e.: “The Furzedown Group Limited a.k.a. The Furzedown Group” Employment Judge Cox Date 25 April 2023 Sent to the Parties on: 16 June 2023 For the Tribunal Office Important note to parties: Any dates for the filing of appeals or reviews are not changed by this certificate of correction and corrected judgment. These time limits still run from the date of the original judgment, or original judgment with reasons, when appealing. Case No. 2301790/2022 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Mustafa Akram Respondent: The Furzedown Group Limited a.k.a The Furzedown Group Held At: London South (Remotely by CVP) On: 12 January 2023 Before: Employment Judge Cox Representation: Claimant: Respondent: In person Non-attendance CORRECTED JUDGMENT[1]The name of the respondent is amended to ‘The Furzedown Group Limited a.k.a The Furzedown Group’.[2]The respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages by failing to pay the claimant the full amount of wages due for the period 1 February 2022 until 7 March 2022 and is ordered to pay to the claimant £4,687.50 gross being the sum withheld.[3]The respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay the claimant in lieu of accrued but untaken annual leave on termination of employment and is ordered to pay to the claimant £2,546.00 gross being the sum due.[4]The respondent was in breach of contract by dismissing the claimant without notice and the respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant damages of £3,125 for that breach.