Case 1800820/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Abbas v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1800820/2024
- Decision date
- 28 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Deeley REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Abbas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Leeds by CVP before Employment Judge Deeley, found that Mr A Abbas's complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages under s13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded. The judgment records that the respondent, Royal Mail Group Ltd, made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in the period 11 December to 29 December 2023.
The deduction was identified as the balance of the claimant's contractual sick pay. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £1,538.28, described as the gross sum deducted, and noted that the claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance due on that payment.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons were to be provided unless requested in accordance with the note appended to the judgment. No other claims or remedies are recorded in the decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint under s13 Employment Rights Act 1996. Tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages in the period 11 December to 29 December 2023, being the balance of contractual sick pay. | Upheld | — | £1,538 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,538
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s13 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.