Mr D Ghafoor v Mexi Bean Express Ltd: 6010573/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 6010573/2024
Between
Mr D GhafoorClaimantMexi Bean Express LtdRespondent
Before
Employment Judge SinghIn-person for claimantMr Vachiaat (employee (instructed by the Respondent)) for respondentMr Vachiat (employee (instructed by the Respondent)) for respondentDate 25 September 2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant’s claim for unlawful deduction from wages is not wellfounded and is dismissed Employment Judge Singh Date: 25th September 2025[2]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. Please note that if a Tribunal hearing has been recorded you may request a transcript of the recording, for which a charge may be payable. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings, and accompanying Guidance, which can be found here:[3]https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practicedirections/"[4]Case No: 6010573/2024 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr D Ghafoor Respondent: Mexi Bean Express Ltd Heard at: Leeds Employment Tribunal (via CVP) On: 25th September 2025 Before: Employment Judge Singh Representation Claimant: In-person Respondent: Mr Vachiat (employee of the Respondent)[6]1. The Claimant’s claim for unlawful deduction from wages is not wellfounded and is dismissed.
REASONS
[1]The Claimant had pursued a claim for £980 for unpaid wages.[2]The Respondent had accepted that the Claimant had carried out work for them and that they had not paid him (although they disputed the specific amount). The Respondent’s defence was that the Claimant was not owed any monies as he had entered into the contract fraudulently. They said that when the Claimant started with them, he provided the details of his brother- name, National Insurance number and identify documents. They said that the Claimant had eventually come clean when it was payday and they terminated his contract immediately and said he wasn’t owed any money as the contract was void.[3]The Claimant accepted that he had provided false information and documents to the Respondent but argued he should still be paid as he carried out the work.[4]My decision, set out in more detail below, was that the Claimant was not owed any money as the contract was void from the start and therefore not enforceable. The monies he claimed were not properly payable to him. Case No: 6010573/2024
The hearing
[5]The hearing took place over CVP and the Claimant and the Respondent both represented themselves.[6]At the start of the hearing, I clarified the claims and issues. The Claimant had had a previous claim for discrimination, but I noted that this had been withdrawn by the Claimant.[7]The Claimant said today that he did not agree that the discrimination claim should have been withdrawn. I asked him the basis of the discrimination claim. He said it was a claim for discrimination because of a criminal background. I explained that this was not a protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010.[8]The Claimant had told EJ Legard in the case management hearing on the 4th July 2025 that he did not wish to pursue the claim for race discrimination and, as such it was dismissed upon withdrawal by EJ Legard.[9]There was no other claim that was live and being pursued by the Claimant, whether for discrimination on the grounds of a criminal background or anything else.[10]As such, I confirmed that the only claim for me to deal with was the claim for unlawful deduction from wages. The provisions regarding pay are set out in the section 13(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.[11]The test for a claim for unlawful deduction from wages isa. Is the payment properly payable to the Claimant?b. If so, was the payment made to the Claimant?c. If not, was the Respondent permitted to make a deduction from the Claimant’s wages?[12]In this case, the latter 2 issues were not in dispute. The Respondent agreed that it had not made the payment to the Claimant and also not arguing that they had been permitted to make the deduction. As such, the only issue for me to determine was whether the monies were properly payable to the Claimant.[13]When determining whether the wages were properly payable, I needed to consider whether there was a valid contract of employment. The obligation to pay wages on the Respondent and the right of the Claimant to be paid the wages will derive from the contract.[14]This does not need to mean a written contract, but the general contractual arrangement between the employer and employee.[15]The case of Greg May (Carpet Fitters and Contractors) Ltd v Dring 1990 ICR 188, EAT states that the tribunal must determine the issues regarding the contract of employment using the ordinary principles of common law.[16]On that basis, I cannot find that there was a valid contract between this Claimant and this Respondent. Case No: 6010573/2024[17]In the first instance, the Respondent had not entered into a contract with this Claimant. They had agreed to employee the Claimant’s brother as far as they were aware. They had been given the impression that that was the person they were hiring to work for them.[18]A contract of employment is a contract of personal service. It is an arrangement between specific persons and not a contract of service where it doesn’t matter who performs the work, as long as the work is done. Instead, a specific person needs to do the work in an employment arrangement.[19]Although the claim for wages extends to “workers” as well as “employees” but even workers are engaged under a contract of service. There needs to be a contractual relationship of some sort for wages to be payable.[20]Secondly, the contract itself was based on a fraudulent act by the Claimant. The Claimant provided someone else’s National Insurance number. It would be unlawful for the Respondent to pay one person wages but then pay NI and Tax for a different person. This would render the contract unlawful and therefore it must be void.[21]Further, by hiding the details of his criminal convictions, the Respondent has hired an employee without being able to carry out proper background checks. It was unknown if any of the convictions were spent or needed to be disclosed. The Respondent did not know this either when they hired the Claimant and were prevented from determining if they could or would wish to hire someone with convictions.[22]It was clear to me that the Claimant had mislead the Respondent and acted fraudulently by using his brother’s details and documents to gain employment.[23]In light of this, I find that the contract of employment was void and that the Claimant was not entitled to be paid any monies from it. The wages claimed were therefore not properly payable to the Claimant and the claim must therefore fail. After the judgment had been delivered[24]The Claimant listened to the judgment but said he did not agree with it because he said that EJ Legard had said that he was owed the monies. I said that could not be the case as if had found this, he would have made an order in favour of the Claimant at the last hearing.[25]I noted that EJ Legard had urged the parties to try and settle the matters, due to the value of the claim and noting the limited resources of the tribunal. However, this could not be taken as any acceptance by EJ Legard that the Claimant had a claim that should succeed. It was only an observation that settlement may be a better option than a tribunal hearing.[26]At this point, the Claimant quit the video hearing. It appeared that he left the hearing because he was upset and angry. I closed the hearing shortly after confirming to the Respondent that the judgment would be sent out in writing. Case No: 6010573/2024