Case 1300002/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Biedny v Corb Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1300002/2020
- Decision date
- 17 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flood
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Biedny
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Corb Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr J Biedny's wages and ordered the respondent to pay him the gross sum of £1,250. The order was made on a Rule 21 basis and the judgment stated that the sum was gross, with Mr Biedny responsible for any income tax and National Insurance contributions.
Mr Biedny's separate claim for £139 of unpaid expenses was dismissed. The tribunal held that payment for expenses incurred by the worker in carrying out employment is excluded from the definition of 'wages' in s.27(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so it could not be recovered as part of an unlawful deduction from wages claim under s.23 of that Act.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,250. | Upheld | — | £1,250 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for £139 unpaid expenses failed because payment in respect of expenses incurred by the worker in carrying out employment is excluded from the definition of wages under s.27(2) ERA 1996 and cannot be awarded under s.23 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,250
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.27(2) ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.