Case 1400765/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Tuella Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400765/2022
- Decision date
- 1 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Angela McGowan brought monetary claims for unlawful deduction from wages against her former employer, Tuella Limited. The respondent had filed a response but did not attend the remote hearing. The tribunal heard from the claimant and, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, found the facts proven on the balance of probabilities.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed as a domiciliary care worker from 8 October 2021 to 5 December 2021, working a 37-hour week at £12 per hour. It accepted her evidence that pay had been received only sporadically and did not always match her payslips. It also accepted that she had not been paid for 49.5 hours worked, amounting to £594, and that £85 in motoring expenses remained unpaid.
Applying section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal held that the respondent had unlawfully deducted £594 in wages and £85 in expenses from sums due to the claimant. It ordered Tuella Limited to pay the gross sum of £679.00. The judgment does not allocate the award separately between the wages and expense elements.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence, in the respondent's absence, that unpaid wages of £594 and unpaid motoring expenses of £85 had been unlawfully deducted. The award was not split between the two heads. | Upheld | — | £679 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £679
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 13 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.