Case 1403780/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Portes v BF Corporation UK Branch Ltd and By Freddy Berkshire Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1403780/2021
- Decision date
- 26 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Appearances
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a telephone hearing in Exeter on 26 January 2022, Employment Judge Smail found that the claimant had been employed by legal personalities holding themselves out as By Freddy, including BF Corporation UK Branch Ltd and By Freddy Berkshire Ltd. The tribunal held that those respondents were jointly and severally liable for the sums ordered.
The tribunal found that the claimant’s claim for unauthorised deductions from earnings was well-founded. It awarded £2,986.32 in respect of unpaid earnings, materials and mileage expenses, broken down as £2,925 for earnings, £28.31 for materials and £33.01 for mileage expenses.
The tribunal also found the race discrimination claim well-founded. It recorded that when the claimant tried to obtain payment, he was taunted about his Portuguese accent, and awarded £1,000 as compensation for injury to feelings. The total sum ordered was £3,986.32, payable within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from earnings well-founded and ordered payment of £2,986.32, made up of £2,925 earnings, £28.31 materials and £33.01 mileage expenses. | Upheld | — | £2,986 |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found the race discrimination claim well-founded. It recorded that the claimant had been taunted about his Portuguese accent when trying to obtain payment, and treated that conduct as harassment for which it awarded injury to feelings. | Upheld | Race | £1,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,986
- 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.