Case 2201762/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. M Toniolo v Think Education Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2201762/2021
- Decision date
- 24 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Joyce Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. M Toniolo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal was satisfied that Think Education Limited had been notified of the hearing and was still actively trading, and it proceeded in the respondent's absence. It found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages contrary to Employment Rights Act 1996 section 13, and had failed to issue payslips during the period of employment in breach of sections 8 and 12 of that Act.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £882.26 net in respect of the unlawful deductions from wages. It also ordered payment of £1,445.35 net in respect of unpaid taxes and national insurance contributions, with that latter sum to be paid to HMRC by the claimant, and directed the respondent to account to HMRC for the tax and national insurance due on the gross sums. The total amount ordered was £2,327.61.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages contrary to Employment Rights Act 1996 section 13 and ordered payment of £882.26 net in respect of the deduction. | Upheld | — | £882 |
| Other | The tribunal found a failure to issue payslips during the employment, in breach of Employment Rights Act 1996 sections 8 and 12. No separate monetary award was stated for this complaint. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,328
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Rights Act 1996 section 13
- Employment Rights Act 1996 section 8
- Employment Rights Act 1996 section 12
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.