Case 1808017/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Naqvi v City Force Healthcare Ltd HELD at Sheffield ET by CVP — 2024
- Case reference
- 1808017/2023
- Decision date
- 19 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Naqvi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that, at all material times, Mrs M Naqvi was an employee of City Force Healthcare Ltd within section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, or alternatively a worker within section 230(3). On that basis she could pursue a Part II ERA 1996 complaint for unauthorised deduction from wages.
The tribunal held that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages in the sum of £1,761, being the gross amount of wages owed for work undertaken between 1 and 22 September 2023. It ordered the respondent to pay that sum to the claimant on or before 24 July 2024. The claimant’s application for a preparation time order was refused, and the deposit paid by the respondent was ordered to be refunded in full.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of gross wages owed for work undertaken between 1 and 22 September 2023. | Upheld | — | £1,761 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,761
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 230(1) ERA 1996
- section 230(3) ERA 1996
- Part II 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.