Case 1303652/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Tofolo v Lionheart Security Services Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1303652/2019
- Decision date
- 13 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Tofolo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Tofolo brought an unpaid wages claim against Lionheart Security Services Ltd, saying he had worked for the respondent as a door supervisor on 22 and 23 February 2019 and that he had not been paid the £160 due a month later. The respondent did not file a response, and neither party attended the hearing on 13 November 2019. The tribunal proceeded under rule 21 on the material available, including the claim form and an email from the claimant asking for an update.
Employment Judge Miller found that the claimant had provided sufficient information about the work he did, when the money became due, and the amount unpaid. In the absence of any response from the respondent, the tribunal found that there had been a deduction of £160 from the claimant's wages due to be paid in March 2019. The claim therefore succeeded as an unauthorised deduction from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the respondent was ordered to pay the gross sum of £160.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the claimant worked on 22 and 23 February 2019, that payment was due in March 2019, and that no payment was made. | Upheld | — | £160 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £160
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 21 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 47 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.