Case 1600305/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Jack Liddell v Billyboard Marketing Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600305/2022
- Decision date
- 21 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge W Brady Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Jack Liddell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the claim in Cardiff on 20 June 2022 before Employment Judge W Brady. It found that Jack Liddell's claim for unauthorised deduction of wages was well-founded. The judgment records that, in breach of section 13(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, Billyboard Marketing Ltd deducted wages from the claimant without his authorisation.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £745.28 gross. It also recorded that the claimant is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions due on that sum. The decision was given orally at the hearing, and the written record notes that no written reasons were provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had deducted wages without the claimant's authorisation, in breach of section 13(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £745 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £745
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 13(1) 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.