Case 1804932/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Wiaderna v GDMA Group Limited (Progressive Care) Heard by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1804932/2021
- Decision date
- 23 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Wiaderna
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss D Wiaderna worked for GDMA Group Limited (Progressive Care) as a payroll administrator from 25 January 2021 until she resigned on 27 April 2021. On resignation the respondent deducted £964.46 from her wages, saying it formed part of an alleged debt of £3,535.39. The judgment says the recruitment agency fee should in fact have been £2,415 rather than £2,760, and that a DBS overcharge of £17 had already been repaid, leaving the respondent’s corrected figure at £2,908.00.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant accepted the contractual clauses dealing with training, DBS checks and the recruitment agency fee, but she was concerned about the size of the agency clawback. The tribunal held that the contract was clear as to recovery of training costs, DBS costs and recruitment fees, but that clause 12.3 was ambiguous on whether the respondent could recover the cost of the claimant’s training days as wages. The tribunal said that ambiguity should be resolved in the claimant’s favour.
The reserved judgment’s opening sentence states that the claim that £964.46 was an unauthorised deduction of wages was dismissed. However, paragraph 5.4 then states that £964.46 was an unauthorised deduction and that the balance which might be collected should be no more than £1,943.54. No monetary award was made to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The reserved judgment’s operative sentence dismisses the claim for £964.46, but paragraph 5.4 says the £964.46 was an unauthorised deduction and discusses a remaining balance of £1,943.54. This appears internally inconsistent. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.13(1) 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.