Case 2200429/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Zewdie v Atlantic Corporation (UK) Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2200429/2024
- Decision date
- 4 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Keogh Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Zewdie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs A Zewdie brought a claim for unlawful deductions from wages and/or breach of contract arising from unpaid September 2023 work and two smaller deductions in July and August 2023 said to be for the DWP. The respondent did not attend the final hearing and provided no evidence. The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that she worked 64 hours in September 2023 at £10.42 per hour, found that £666.88 gross was unpaid, and ordered the respondent to pay that sum, subject to statutory deductions, within 14 days.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's complaint about the two £35.71 deductions taken for a Direct Earnings Attachment. It held that the complaint was presented out of time because ACAS conciliation did not begin until after the three-month period had expired, and it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have brought the complaint in time because she knew her rights, had internet access, communicated with the respondent, and raised a grievance on 13 November 2023. The tribunal also said that, if it were wrong on time limits, the deductions were required by the DEA notice and were around 5% of pay, so the claim was excluded by section 14(3) ERA 1996.
The alternative breach of contract basis failed for the same reasons. The tribunal also found that the respondent had not explained or evidenced its counterclaim, had failed to comply with directions, and had not attended the hearing. The counterclaim was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that she worked 64 hours in September 2023 at £10.42 per hour and found an unlawful deduction of £666.88 gross. The claim succeeded only in part because the July and August 2023 DWP-related deductions were not allowed. | Upheld | — | £667 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the alternative breach of contract basis failed because the July and August 2023 complaints were out of time and, in any event, the deductions were required under the DEA notice and therefore not recoverable as a contractual claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The respondent's counterclaim for alleged losses said to arise from the claimant leaving without proper notice and taking leave without notice was dismissed because the respondent did not attend, gave no evidence, and did not comply with directions requiring particulars of the counterclaim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £667
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.14(3) ERA 1996
- s.27 ERA 1996
- reasonably practicable
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.