Case 1801384/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss B Day Respondent (1): Mumby Trading Ltd Respondent (2): CBD Commerce Ltd v Mr N Mumby, Director — 2023
- Case reference
- 1801384/2023
- Decision date
- 30 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss B Day Respondent (1): Mumby Trading Ltd Respondent (2): CBD Commerce Ltd
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal noted at the outset that the first respondent, Mumby Trading Ltd, had been dissolved on 11 April 2023, so no proceedings could be brought or continued against it. It also held that, in the interests of justice, CBD Commerce Ltd should be joined as the second respondent. The tribunal found that the claimant's employment had transferred from the first respondent to the second respondent under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 before the end of the claimant's employment.
On the substantive claim, the tribunal found that the second respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages for the pay periods between 18 and 24 February 2023 and between 25 February and 3 March 2023 inclusive. It therefore ordered the second respondent to pay the claimant £508, described as the gross amount due and the amount of the unauthorised deductions, payable by 5 June 2023.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the second respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages for the pay periods between 18 and 24 February 2023 and between 25 February and 3 March 2023 inclusive. It ordered payment of the gross amount due. | Upheld | — | £508 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £508
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.