Case 1802890/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M James (Claimant’s partner) For the v Mr M Brain (solicitor) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1802890/2022
- Decision date
- 24 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Mr T Downes, Mr L Priestley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M James (Claimant’s partner) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the Claimant’s complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages were well-founded and ordered the Respondent to pay £911.05. It also found that some pregnancy or maternity discrimination complaints were not well-founded, specifically those about deducting sums from maternity pay because of an overpayment of holiday pay and about not telling the Claimant when her employment ended.
The tribunal upheld the Claimant’s remaining pregnancy or maternity discrimination complaints. It awarded £6,500 compensation for injury to feelings and £598.35 interest on that sum. The judgment was delivered orally at the hearing, with written reasons to follow only if requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages succeeded and the tribunal ordered payment of £911.05. | Upheld | — | £911 |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Complaints of pregnancy or maternity discrimination about deducting sums from maternity pay because of an overpayment of holiday pay and about not telling the Claimant when her employment ended were dismissed. The remaining pregnancy or maternity discrimination complaints succeeded, and £6,500 was awarded for injury to feelings. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | £6,500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,009
- across all upheld claims
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.