Case 1800921/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs SA Voicu v Riviera Multimedia Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1800921/2022
- Decision date
- 1 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Knowles Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs SA Voicu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs SA Voicu’s claim for unauthorised deductions from wages succeeded. The tribunal found the claim well founded and ordered Riviera Multimedia Ltd to pay £3,403.85 gross. The judgment also records that the respondent was responsible for making the normal source deductions for employee national insurance contributions and income tax and accounting to HMRC for sums required by law.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant’s separate claim relating to pension loss. The judgment says that claim was not well founded, but it does not set out any separate award for it.
The judgment also amends the claimant’s name to Mrs SA Voicu. It was heard by Employment Judge Knowles at Leeds by video on 6 June 2022, and the written record was sent to the parties on 1 July 2022.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages was well founded and ordered payment of £3,403.85 gross. | Upheld | — | £3,404 |
| Other | The judgment states that the claim relating to pension loss was not well founded and was dismissed. It does not identify a separate statutory claim type for that issue. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,404
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £3,404
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.