Case 1401195/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr N Jones, Solicitor — 2023
- Case reference
- 1401195/2023
- Decision date
- 14 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Dean Manfield, worked for B R Rail Limited as a Project Manager from 6 December 2021 to 18 November 2022 on a salary of £45,000 per annum plus overtime. The tribunal recorded that the unfair dismissal claim had already been struck out for lack of continuity of service, so this judgment dealt only with the monetary claims for unlawful deduction from wages. The tribunal applied section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Three claimed items were dismissed. The tribunal rejected a claim for five hours of overtime in May 2022 because there was no written evidence that the extra hours had been authorised. It also dismissed the May 2022 phone-bill item because that expense had already been covered by the separate payment made for seven months of phone expenses. A further claim for underpaid hourly rate for August to September 2022 was dismissed because the tribunal was not satisfied that the higher rate had been worked or authorised.
Four items succeeded. The tribunal awarded £75.00 for September 2022 expenses, £175.55 for July 2022 expenses after crediting amounts already paid, £66.18 for January 2022 phone expenses, and £81.07 for December 2021 phone expenses. The total awarded was £397.80, and the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay that sum to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Five hours of overtime claimed for May 2022 at £34.00 per hour. The tribunal found there was no written evidence that this additional overtime had been authorised and held the burden of proof was not discharged. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for an unpaid phone bill for May 2022. The tribunal found the expense had already been covered by the separate seven-month phone-expenses payment and dismissed this item. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim described as underpaid hourly rate for August to September 2022. The claimant later explained it as 30 hours at a differential of £10.82, totalling £324.60, but the tribunal found the higher rate was not proved to have been worked or authorised. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid expenses for September 2022. The tribunal limited the claim to £75.00, which the respondent conceded was due. | Upheld | — | £75 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid expenses for July 2022. The tribunal accepted the respondent's analysis that £94.00 had already been paid and £11.00 was covered by a petrol payment card, leaving £175.55 due. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £398
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 13 of the 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.