Case 2210363/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 2210363/2023
- Decision date
- 4 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Stout
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaint that he had been underpaid between 8 June 2022 and 1 April 2023, and his later case that he should instead be treated as having been paid £23,220 for 8 June 2022 to 5 April 2023. It accepted the respondent's table at page 89 of the bundle, found that the claimant's P60 figure of £21,108.91 was a gross figure and covered pay only to 9 March, and held that the difference from the payslips was explained by tax, NI and pension deductions and by the different period covered. The tribunal also accepted the respondent's evidence about the clocking-in system and found that the claimant had not proved the hours were recorded incorrectly.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimed shortfall of £2,085.88 was not proved. It accepted the respondent's payroll table and evidence about the hours-recording system, and held that the apparent difference between the claimant's P60 and payslips was explained by gross figures and the different pay period covered by the P60. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant's amended notice-pay claim failed. The tribunal construed the contractual notice clause as requiring 4 weeks' minimum notice, found the respondent gave valid counter-notice, and held that the final payment fully satisfied the notice-pay debt, with a small overpayment of 2 days after later adjustment. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.