Case 1800049/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr Scaif (Director) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1800049/2020
- Decision date
- 12 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies Appearances
- Venue
- Hull
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 12 March 2020 before Employment Judge Davies, the claimant, Miss S Barwick, pursued complaints of unauthorised deduction from wages. The judgment records that, by consent, the complaint about training costs was well-founded and succeeded. The respondent was ordered to pay £450.68 in respect of that deduction.
The tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay a further £12 for a bank charge incurred as a result of the unauthorised deduction from wages. The judgment does not break that sum out as a separate claim, but it was awarded in addition to the £450.68.
The claimant’s separate complaint about an unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of a loan for the purchase of scissors was found not well-founded and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | By consent, the complaint about an unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of training costs succeeded. The judgment also ordered £12 for a bank charge incurred as a result of that deduction. | Upheld | — | £463 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint about an unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of a loan for the purchase of scissors was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £463
- 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.