Case 2202862/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2202862/2019
- Decision date
- 6 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr P Bennett worked for Simmons Gainsford LLP as a graduate trainee from 8 August 2016 under an offer letter and employment contract dated 27 June 2016. He gave notice on 9 May 2019 and his final day of employment was 9 August 2019. The dispute concerned deductions of £3,878 from his June, July and August 2019 wages, made up of tuition fees and a £600 examination fee. He accepted deductions referable to tuition costs for courses within the 12 months before resignation, but disputed the deduction for earlier modules and the examination fee.
The tribunal interpreted the offer letter and employment contract objectively, referring to Arnold v Britton, Investors Compensation Scheme v West Bromwich Building Society, and Lukoil Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Ocean Tankers (The Ocean Neptune). It held that the phrase about reimbursing the "previous twelve months' tuition costs" was confined to tuition elements for modules undertaken in the 12 months before resignation. On that basis, the sum of £1,053.17 for modules undertaken between 30 April 2018 and 22 June 2018 was outside the repayment provision and was an unauthorised deduction under s.13 ERA 1996.
By contrast, the tribunal held that the contract allowed recovery of examination fees as well as course fees. It considered the wording of the offer letter, read with clause 4 of the employment contract, and found that reimbursement of both course and examination fees was the most logical interpretation. The tribunal therefore dismissed the challenge to the £600 deduction for the November 2018 examinations. The only monetary award was £1,053.17.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that deductions totalling £1,053.17 for Kaplan modules undertaken between 30 April 2018 and 22 June 2018 fell outside the contractual repayment window and were unauthorised deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £1,053 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the £600 deduction for examination fees undertaken in November 2018 was contractually recoverable and dismissed this part of the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,053
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.27 ERA 1996
- Arnold v Britton
- Investors Compensation Scheme v West Bromwich Building Society
- Lukoil Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Ocean Tankers (The Ocean Neptune)
- contra proferentem principle
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.