Case 1600898/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Megran v Bombora Wave Power Europe Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600898/2023
- Decision date
- 5 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Sharp
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Megran
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a consent judgment before Employment Judge C Sharp sitting alone in Cardiff on 4 December 2023. The Respondent’s name was corrected to Bombora Wave Power Europe Ltd. The Tribunal recorded that the Claimant, Mr D Megran, appeared in person and that the Respondent was represented by Mr S Leighton, although the Respondent was debarred from participation.
The only substantive claim recorded in the written judgment was an unauthorised deduction from wages claim. The Tribunal found that claim to be well founded and ordered the Respondent to pay Mr Megran £11,931 gross. The judgment states that the Claimant is responsible for any tax or national insurance contributions due.
The written record notes that reasons for the decision were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons were not provided unless requested in accordance with the Tribunal Rules. No separate breakdown of the award was given beyond the gross sum ordered.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Consent judgment: the claim for unauthorised deduction from wages was found well founded and the Respondent was ordered to pay £11,931 gross. | Upheld | — | £11,931 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,931
- 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.