Case 1304997/2020 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Ms S Younis Litigation Consultant — 2020
- Case reference
- 1304997/2020
- Decision date
- 4 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a final merits hearing before Employment Judge Perry sitting alone on 4 August 2020. The judgment was recorded as being by consent, so the tribunal noted the parties' agreed positions rather than making contested findings after evidence.
The tribunal recorded that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from the claimant's wages under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It ordered the respondent to pay £2,548.57 gross in respect of that deduction.
The tribunal also recorded that the respondent was in breach of its duty under section 1(1) and/or 4(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, it ordered the respondent to pay an additional four weeks' pay of £1,961.54 gross pursuant to section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. The judgment further stated that the respondent was entitled to offset £2,987.78 net from any net sum payable to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Agreed by consent. The tribunal recorded that the respondent made an unlawful deduction from the claimant's wages under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and ordered payment of £2,548.57 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,549 |
| Other | Agreed by consent. The judgment records a breach of the respondent's duty under section 1(1) and/or 4(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and orders an additional four weeks' pay of £1,961.54 gross under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £1,962 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,510
- across all upheld claims
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.