Case 1305628/2019 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Mr M Miah, Managing Director — 2019
- Case reference
- 1305628/2019
- Decision date
- 31 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Richardson Signed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Birmingham on 31 October 2019, Employment Judge Richardson heard the claimant in person and the respondent represented by its Managing Director, Mr M Miah. The Tribunal held that the claimant's claim for unlawful deduction from wages under s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded.
The Tribunal also found that the respondent did not provide a payslip to the claimant, in breach of s.8 Employment Rights Act 1996, and made an award under s.12(4) Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment does not separate the figures between the wage deduction complaint and the payslip issue.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £1,838.75 gross, with the claimant to account for tax and NIC on that sum. The judgment refers to the calculation being attached at appendix A, but no further reasoning or breakdown is set out in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal held the claimant's claim for unlawful deduction from wages under s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded. The award was not split out separately in the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The Tribunal found that the respondent did not provide a payslip to the claimant, in breach of s.8 Employment Rights Act 1996, and made an award under s.12(4) Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment does not give a separate claim label for this issue. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,839
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.8 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.12(4) 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.