Case 1803317/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Smith v Readman Enterprises Limited HELD BY CVP in Sheffield — 2021
- Case reference
- 1803317/2021
- Decision date
- 3 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Smith
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard evidence from Miss A Smith and there was no appearance by Readman Enterprises Limited. It found that the deduction of £24 from the claimant’s wages to reimburse the cost of an apron was an unauthorised deduction from wages.
It also found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant her share of tips accumulated and due for distribution on or around 12 May 2021. The tribunal assessed that unpaid amount at £60 and held that this was also an unauthorised deduction from wages.
The tribunal therefore concluded that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages in the total sum of £84 and ordered the respondent to pay that sum to the claimant on or before 6 September 2021. The written record notes that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the deduction of £24 from wages to reimburse the cost of an apron was an unauthorised deduction. | Upheld | — | £24 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the respondent failed to pay the claimant her share of tips accumulated and due for distribution on or around 12 May 2021, assessed at £60. | Upheld | — | £60 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £84
- 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.