Case 2200477/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Maninder Pal Singh Bath v Jill Facer and Malcolm Last t/a Chassay and Last Architects — 2024
- Case reference
- 2200477/2024
- Decision date
- 11 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shukla Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Maninder Pal Singh Bath
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimant’s complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded. It ordered the respondents to pay £21,498, described as the gross sum deducted, and stated that the claimant was responsible for any tax or national insurance due on that sum.
The tribunal also found that the claimant’s claims for constructive unfair dismissal and breach of contract in relation to notice pay were well-founded. No remedy was fixed for those claims in this judgment.
A remedy hearing of three hours was listed for 24 September 2024, with directions attached at Appendix A. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded and ordered payment of the gross sum deducted. It recorded that the claimant is responsible for any tax or national insurance. | Upheld | — | £21,498 |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found the claim for constructive unfair dismissal well-founded. Remedy was not determined in this judgment and was listed for a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the breach of contract claim in relation to notice pay well-founded. Remedy was not determined in this judgment and was listed for a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £21,498
- across all upheld claims
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.