Case 1601051/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Calape v Tafarn Y Deri (Bed & Breakfast) Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1601051/2019
- Decision date
- 9 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howden-Evans Representation
- Venue
- Carmarthen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Calape
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr F Calape, brought a complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages against Tafarn Y Deri (Bed & Breakfast) Limited. The hearing took place at Carmarthen on 10 February 2020 before Employment Judge Howden-Evans, with the claimant not attending and the respondent appearing in person through its manager, Mr Evans.
Having made enquiries about the claimant’s non-attendance, considered the documents from both parties, and heard evidence on oath from the respondent, the tribunal found the complaint was not well-founded and dismissed it. The tribunal accepted the respondent’s evidence that the claimant had been paid the wages he was entitled to receive.
The tribunal also found that any deductions made from wages were deductions for tax and national insurance, which the respondent was required to deduct and account to HMRC. Written reasons were said to be available only if 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 claimant had been paid the wages he was entitled to. Any deductions were for tax and national insurance, which the respondent was obliged to deduct and account to HMRC. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.