Case 1403659/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr Neil Wilson – Director — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403659/2022
- Decision date
- 4 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leverton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal amended the third respondent's name to Neil Wilson t/a Neil Wilson & Co Chartered Accountants and held that the claim against that respondent was presented in time under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as extended by the early conciliation provisions, the alleged deductions having taken place on 29 June 2022. It also accepted the respondents' application under rule 20 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 for an extension of time to present a joint response.
On the substance, the tribunal found that the respondents had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It granted a declaration to that effect and ordered the respondents, jointly liable, to pay the claimant the net sum of £684.11.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the respondents made unauthorised deductions from wages contrary to section 13 ERA 1996 and ordered joint liability for the net sum of £684.11. It also held the claim against the third respondent was in time under section 23 ERA 1996 as extended by early conciliation, and accepted the respondents' rule 20 application for an extension of time to present a joint response. | Upheld | — | £684 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £684
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 20 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.