Case 1801274/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Ms Mayhew-Hills, litigation consultant — 2023
- Case reference
- 1801274/2023
- Decision date
- 17 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningClaim numbers 1801279/2023 and 1801281/2023 were dismissed as duplicates of claim number 1801274/2023. The tribunal recorded that the First Respondent accepted that liability for the Claimant had transferred to it from the Second Respondent under regulation 4 of the TUPE Regulations 2006. It also dismissed all claims against the Second Respondent other than those under the Equality Act 2010 on withdrawal by the Claimant.
By consent, the First Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant £111 in respect of her claim of unauthorised deductions relating to training costs and one hour's unpaid wages. The judgment does not allocate that sum between the training-cost and unpaid-wage elements.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records a single consent payment of £111 in respect of unauthorised deductions relating to training costs and one hour's unpaid wages, and it does not break the amount down between those items. Claim numbers 1801279/2023 and 1801281/2023 were dismissed as duplicates of this claim number. | Settled | — | £111 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £111
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Regulation 4 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006
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.