Case 1602332/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Brass / Mr J Johnson / Mr L Stevenson / Mr T Buckley v Dutton Divers Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1602332/2023
- Decision date
- 31 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Williams REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Brass / Mr J Johnson / Mr L Stevenson / Mr T Buckley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFour claimants employed by Dutton Divers Limited brought claims of unlawful deduction from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, heard together by Employment Judge A Williams sitting at Cardiff (remote) on 4 November 2024. The claimants represented themselves; the respondent was represented by its director, Ms Dutton. The tribunal accepted that the contracts of employment for Ms Brass, Mr Johnson and Mr Stevenson required the use of the respondent's electronic clocking-in system, Blip, and that what was properly payable was the hours recorded by that system, applying Agarwal v Cardiff University in determining what was properly payable.
For Ms Brass and Mr Johnson, the tribunal found their payslips accorded with the Blip transcripts and there was no evidence either had sought to rectify the records on the disputed dates. For Mr Stevenson, the tribunal found his payslips broadly matched the Blip transcripts and that an inconsistency between sums received and the figure on his P45 did not, of itself, establish that he had been paid less than was properly payable. For Mr Buckley, the tribunal accepted his August 2023 payment of £228.34 did not appear on his bank statement but found on the balance of probabilities that the respondent had made the payment via a Payment Instruction Confirmation containing the correct account details.
All four wages complaints were held to be not well-founded and were dismissed. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Miss K Brass: complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of July 2023 payslip (£191.80 for 22 hours; she claimed £212.55 for an additional 19.5 hours). Tribunal found pay accorded with the Blip clocking-in records, which the contract required her to use, and there was no evidence she had attempted to rectify the records. Not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Mr J Johnson: complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages throughout employment (April–July 2023). Tribunal found pay accorded with the Blip records and there was no evidence he had attempted to rectify the records. Not well-founded and dismissed. (A separate claim relating to a training fee recoupment was no longer pursued at the start of the hearing.) | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Mr L Stevenson: complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages throughout employment, based on an apparent inconsistency between sums received (£1,673.37) and the P45 figure (£2,935.54 gross / £587 tax and NI). Tribunal found payslips broadly accorded with Blip transcripts and that the P45/HMRC discrepancy did not establish underpayment of what was properly payable. Not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Mr T Buckley: complaint that the final payslip for August 2023 (£228.34) was never received in his bank account. Tribunal accepted the payment did not appear on his September 2023 statement but, on the balance of probabilities, found the Respondent had made the payment per the Payment Instruction Confirmation containing the correct account details. Not well-founded and dismissed. |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Agarwal v Cardiff University and others [2018] EWCA Civ 2084
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.