Case 1308644/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Tribunal upholds unlawful-deduction-from-wages and breach-of-contract claims against Birmingham Tamatanga Ltd
The Tribunal found that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in the period 1 to 12 August 2023.
- Case reference
- 1308644/2023
- Decision date
- 25 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Codd Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Ellison
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in the period 1 to 12 August 2023. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant 1000 pounds, described as the gross sum deducted, with the respondent responsible for tax or National Insurance and forwarding the net sums to the claimant.
The Tribunal also found the complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay to be well-founded. It ordered the respondent to pay 500 pounds as damages for breach of contract, calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that tax would be payable as Post Employment Notice Pay.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded and awards the gross sum deducted for 1 to 12 August 2023. | Upheld | — | £1,000 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay was well-founded and awards damages for breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,500
- 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.