Case 1601103/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Ryan v Maxx Bridgend Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1601103/2018
- Decision date
- 27 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge RL Brace
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Ryan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Cardiff on 26 June 2019 before Employment Judge RL Brace, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by counsel. The only claim identified in the judgment was an unlawful deductions from wages claim under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal held that the claimant's unlawful deductions for wages claim was well founded. It ordered the respondent, Maxx Bridgend Limited, to pay the claimant £882.65 net in respect of that claim.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons were not provided unless requested under the Tribunal Rules. No separate remedy breakdown beyond the single net award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant's unlawful deductions from wages claim under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996 to be well founded and ordered payment of £882.65 net. | Upheld | — | £883 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £883
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.13 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.