Case 1801624/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. A Buxton v AnR Specialists Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1801624/2022
- Decision date
- 9 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buckley REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. A Buxton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Buckley, sitting at Leeds Employment Tribunal by CVP on 9 June 2022, made a declaration that AnR Specialists Limited had failed to give Mr A Buxton an itemised pay statement in accordance with s 8 Employment Rights Act 1996. That declaration did not carry a separate monetary award.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had made an unnotified deduction from wages of £281.28. The claim for unlawful deductions from wages succeeded on that basis, and the respondent was ordered to pay Mr Buxton £281.28.
The judgment records that there was no award of compensation beyond the deducted sum. The overall monetary award recorded by the tribunal was therefore £281.28.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Declaration that the respondent failed to give the claimant an itemised pay statement in accordance with s 8 Employment Rights Act 1996. No monetary award was attached to this declaration. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unnotified deduction of £281.28 and ordered the respondent to pay that sum. It stated that there was no award of compensation. | Upheld | — | £281 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £281
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s 8 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.