Case 1308231/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Trafford v Mr M N Stanley — 2021
- Case reference
- 1308231/2019
- Decision date
- 16 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge V Jones Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Trafford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that at all material times the claimant was a worker of the respondent within section 230(3) ERA 1996. It held that the claimant’s section 23(1) ERA 1996 claim was well-founded because the respondent made a series of deductions from wages between 31 May 2019 and 6 August 2019 by failing to pay the claimant his full entitlement.
The tribunal set out its calculation in the judgment. It found wages due of £3,000 for 30 days, less £1,248 paid, leaving a shortfall of £1,752; wages due of £2,000 for 20 days, less £1,280 paid, leaving a shortfall of £720; and wages due of £700 for 7 days, less £480 paid, leaving a shortfall of £220. Those figures totalled £2,692, from which it deducted £300 for three days not worked, producing unlawful deductions of £2,392.
It ordered the respondent to pay £2,392 under section 24(1) ERA 1996 and a further £209.06 under section 24(2) ERA 1996 for financial loss attributable to the unlawful deductions. The total amount payable was £2,601.06.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the section 23(1) ERA 1996 claim well-founded and found unlawful deductions from wages between 31 May 2019 and 6 August 2019. It ordered payment of £2,392 under section 24(1) ERA 1996 and further compensation of £209.06 under section 24(2) ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £2,601 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,601
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £209
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.230(3) ERA 1996
- s.23(1) ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.24(1) ERA 1996
- s.24(2) ERA 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.