Case 1404448/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Sbfm — 2023
- Case reference
- 1404448/2022
- Decision date
- 22 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a monetary claim for unlawful deduction from wages against SBFM Limited. The respondent had entered a response denying the claim but did not attend the remote hearing, and the tribunal proceeded in its absence under Rule 47 after considering the available information.
The tribunal found that the claimant remained employed by the respondent and accepted that an earlier overpayment of about £800 had been deducted from his normal salary and was not part of the claim. The claim concerned three deductions: £311 for an unpaid shift and fuel allowance, £400 for acting up as a supervisor where only £80 of an agreed £480 was paid, and £300 deducted from September 2022 salary without explanation.
Applying section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully deducted £1,011.00 from the claimant's wages and ordered the respondent to pay that gross sum.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found three unauthorised deductions from wages totalling £1,011.00. | Upheld | — | £1,011 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,011
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, Schedule 1
- balance of probabilities
- 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.