Case 1805202/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Robinson v Ainsty Ales Brewery Limited AT A HEARING — 2019
- Case reference
- 1805202/2019
- Decision date
- 5 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Robinson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Leeds on 5 December 2019, before Employment Judge Lancaster, the respondent did not attend. The tribunal amended the respondent’s title to remove the extraneous reference to “(andrew Herrington)”. It then found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages in respect of outstanding commission payments still due, and ordered the respondent to pay £385 gross.
The tribunal also considered the claimant’s complaint about financial loss attributable to underpayment of salary for March 2019. It held that this complaint had not been presented in time, although it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time, and dismissed it. No separate award was made in relation to that complaint, so the only monetary award recorded in the judgment was the £385 gross sum for the unlawful deductions claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of outstanding commission payments still due and ordered payment of £385 gross. | Upheld | — | £385 |
| Breach of contract | The complaint about financial loss attributable to underpayment of salary for March 2019 was found to have been presented out of time, although it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £385
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £385
- 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.