Case 1801699/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Cooper v Loudslurp MHS Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1801699/2020
- Decision date
- 30 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Little REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Cooper
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Cooper brought a claim for unauthorised deduction from wages arising from his final payment on leaving Loudslurp MHS Ltd. The tribunal noted that he did not receive a payslip for the last period, which made it difficult to work out the precise deduction, but it accepted that his employment ran from 10 December 2019 to 30 January 2020 and that he had signed a contract on 11 December 2019.
The respondent argued that it was entitled to deduct sums because the claimant had not worked his notice period, and alternatively suggested it might recover training costs. The tribunal found that the claimant gave one week’s notice by letter dated 23 January 2020, with a last day of 30 January 2020, and accepted that he gave that letter to his manager, Maria Mirza. It also accepted that a chat message copied to the tribunal was a courtesy message to colleagues rather than notice to the employer.
The tribunal held that the claimant had complied with his contractual notice obligation and that there was therefore no basis for deduction from final pay. It also found that the contract contained no provision allowing training costs to be recovered by deduction, so that alternative justification also failed. Clause 11 of the contract allowed deduction only for loss suffered by the respondent or additional cover costs if the full notice period was not worked, which the tribunal found was not engaged on the facts.
On remedy, the claimant had said he expected a gross final payment of £1,143.14 and had received £859.41 into his bank account. The tribunal explained that those figures were not directly comparable, accepted the claimant’s evidence that around £60 would have been deducted for tax and national insurance, and calculated the net amount that should have been paid as about £1,083.14. The resulting deficit was £223.73, and that was the sum ordered to be paid forthwith.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages well-founded and ordered payment of the shortfall. The respondent did not attend the telephone hearing. | Upheld | — | £224 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £224
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £224
- 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.