Case 1401845/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr Andy Pickett of Queen Square Chambers — 2022
- Case reference
- 1401845/2022
- Decision date
- 11 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge H Lumby Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal removed the third respondent as a party to the proceedings and dismissed the claim against the second respondent. The judgment records that the claimant, Mr Robert Strongitharm, succeeded in his unlawful deduction from wages claim against the first respondent, The Roseland Multi Academy Trust.
The first respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £1,424.17. That sum was made up of unpaid wages of £1,151.50, calculated at £127.94 per day for nine days, plus unpaid pension contributions of £272.67. Written reasons were not provided because reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 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 | The claimant succeeded in his unlawful deduction from wages claim against the first respondent, which was ordered to pay the gross sum of £1,424.17. | Upheld | — | £1,424 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim against the second respondent was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,424
- 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.