Case 1800517/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Morley v Mr J Atkins and 2 others — 2019
- Case reference
- 1800517/2019
- Decision date
- 3 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Little Representation
- Venue
- Hull
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr A Morley
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimant's former employer was Anoesis Limited, and that Mr J Atkins and Mr T Day should be discharged from the proceedings in their personal capacities. It found that the third respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages because there had been an underpayment of £303.
The tribunal also made a higher award of £240, stating that this was made in breach of the employer's obligations under the Employment Rights Act 1996 section 1 and by virtue of Employment Act 2002 section 38. The judgment recorded that the total award was therefore £543, payable by Anoesis Limited to the claimant forthwith.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that Anoesis Limited, as the claimant's former employer and sole correct respondent, made an unauthorised deduction from wages through an underpayment of £303. | Upheld | — | £303 |
| Other | The tribunal also made a higher award of £240 by reference to the employer's obligations under the Employment Rights Act 1996 section 1 and the Employment Act 2002 section 38. | Upheld | — | £240 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £543
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.