Case 1801462/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Cuttell v Medley Davis Transport Limited This has been a remote hearing, by telephone (A): A hearing in person was not held because of the present restrictions due to Covid and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 1801462/2020
- Decision date
- 5 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
3 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a remote hearing by telephone on 5 May 2020 before Employment Judge D N Jones. The claimant, Mr C Cuttell, appeared in person and the respondent did not attend. The tribunal had the claim form and a wage slip before it.
The tribunal found that Medley Davis Transport Limited had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages in the net sum of £708.26. The judgment does not record any dispute on the merits from the respondent, and it makes no reference to any other claims.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the net sum of £708.26 to the claimant and to account to HMRC for the corresponding income tax and national insurance liabilities under the PAYE scheme.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages in the net sum of £708.26. | Upheld | — | £708 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £708
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £708
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.