Case 1302773/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Singh v Alornevore Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1302773/2024
- Decision date
- 5 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Coghlin KC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Singh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Coghlin KC, sitting alone at Birmingham by CVP on 5 November 2024, heard the claimant's unlawful deduction from wages claim. The claimant appeared in person; the respondent did not appear and was not represented. The tribunal found that, in the period covered by the payslip dated 19 January 2024, the claimant had worked 52.5 hours but had been paid for only 40.5 hours at an hourly rate of £14, producing a shortfall of £168.
The tribunal held that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and that the claim under section 23(1)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded to the extent set out in the judgment. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £168 gross, subject to any appropriate deductions for tax and national insurance.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim under s.23(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996. Tribunal found the claimant worked 52.5 hours but was paid for only 40.5 hours in the period covered by the payslip dated 19.1.24; at an hourly rate of £14 this produced a shortfall of 12 x £14 = £168. | Upheld | — | £168 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £168
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.23(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.