Case 1401655/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend For the v Mr M King, Operations Director — 2019
- Case reference
- 1401655/2019
- Decision date
- 20 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Appearances
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr D Pendleton, brought a claim of unlawful deduction from wages against Pro Deck Fixing Ltd. The hearing took place in Bristol on 20 December 2019 before Employment Judge Midgley, with the claimant not attending and Mr M King, Operations Director, appearing for the respondent.
The tribunal held that the claim was not well founded and dismissed it. Its reason was that the deductions made from the claimant's pay were permitted by a relevant provision of the claimant's contract of employment, and that the claimant had been given a copy of the contract containing that provision before the respondent made the deductions in question.
No monetary award was made. The written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the deductions were permitted by a relevant provision in the claimant's contract of employment and that the claimant had been given a copy of the contract containing that provision before the deductions were made. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.