Case 2201580/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v No appearance or — 2022
- Case reference
- 2201580/2022
- Decision date
- 15 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Coen
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal amended the claim to add K4S Support Services Ltd as the Second Respondent, dispensed with further service on that respondent, and gave judgment jointly and severally against both respondents.
The Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to hear the claimant's unauthorised deductions from wages claim under section 111(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claim succeeded, and the respondents were ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £3,240 for unauthorised deductions from wages between 24 August 2021 and 10 October 2021.
The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that the award was expressed as a gross figure, subject to appropriate deductions for income tax and national insurance by the paying party.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes the claim as unauthorised deductions from wages and states that it succeeds. | Upheld | — | £3,240 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,240
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 111(2)(b) of the 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.