Case 1805340/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Gwynne v Retro Corner Custom Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1805340/2021
- Decision date
- 9 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jaleel Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Gwynne
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr S Gwynne was employed by Retro Corner Custom Limited between 5 and 8 July 2021 and had worked 44 hours in that period. It accepted the email evidence from May and July 2021, including the 1 July 2021 email asking him to "pop in tomorrow morning" and asking whether he could "Start Monday", and preferred the claimant's evidence to Mr Mosley's where there was inconsistency with the emails.
The tribunal found that the claimant was engaged on a salary of £24,000 per annum and that he left because he was dissatisfied with the number of hours he was working. It accepted his account that he had not been paid for the four days worked and concluded that he earned £369.24 gross for that period.
Applying sections 13, 23 and 13(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal held that the failure to pay the wages properly payable was an unauthorised deduction from wages. The claim therefore succeeded and the respondent was ordered to pay £369.24 gross to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £369 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £369
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13(3) 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.