Case 1405575/2023 · Employment Tribunal
- IN PERSON FOR THE v - Mr S Lintern — 2024
- Case reference
- 1405575/2023
- Decision date
- 27 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
- IN PERSON FOR THE
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr J Knight, brought a claim of unlawful deduction from wages against Vector Projects Ltd, originally in two respects: unpaid overtime and a £650 deduction from his final salary. At the hearing the claimant confirmed that he was only pursuing the £650 deduction. Neither party had complied with case management orders to agree a bundle, and no documents were before the tribunal in relation to the overtime element.
The respondent did not dispute that the £650 deduction had been made, and accepted that it had not been made pursuant to any contractual right or with the claimant's written consent. On that basis the respondent accepted that the deduction was unlawful. Both parties indicated they were content for the tribunal to give judgment for the £650.
Employment Judge Cadney, sitting alone in Bristol, held that the claim of unlawful deduction from wages was well founded and upheld, and ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £650. The respondent noted that the claimant retained electronic equipment (a phone and a tablet) which remained its property, and indicated it was content for that property to be returned immediately on payment of the £650.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claimant originally brought two strands: unpaid overtime and a £650 deduction from final salary. At the hearing the claimant confirmed he was only seeking the £650. The respondent accepted the deduction was not made pursuant to any contractual right or with the claimant's written consent and accepted it was unlawful. | Upheld | — | £650 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £650
- 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.