Case 1803239/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr M Atwood, Technical Director — 2022
- Case reference
- 1803239/2022
- Decision date
- 3 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge James Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 3 October 2022 in Sheffield by CVP, Employment Judge James heard oral evidence from the claimant, Mr A Bromfield, and from Mr M Atwood for the respondent, Excel Parking Services Limited, followed by brief submissions from both sides. The tribunal decided that the claim for unauthorised deduction of wages under section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £2,792.33, less tax and NI. It also recorded section 25(4) Employment Rights Act 1996, noting that once the declaration had been made, any amount the employer was entitled to recover in relation to the deduction was treated as reduced by that amount, so it could not be claimed again in separate small claims proceedings.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim succeeded under section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £2,792.33, less tax and NI. Section 25(4) ERA 1996 was recorded as reducing any corresponding amount the respondent might seek to recover in separate proceedings. | Upheld | — | £2,792 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,792
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.25(4) 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.