Case 2211472/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Sacred River Ltd t/a Sketch — 2023
- Case reference
- 2211472/2023
- Decision date
- 13 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ms
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr D Pamukov, brought a complaint under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 alleging unlawful deductions from wages under section 13. The case was heard at London Central on 13 November 2023 before Employment Judge A Stewart sitting alone. The respondent was Sacred River Ltd t/a Sketch, represented by Mr J-J Leveque, Director of Culture and People.
The tribunal found the complaint well-founded to the extent of £296.29 and otherwise not well-founded. It ordered the respondent to pay Mr Pamukov £296.29, with tax and national insurance to be deducted via payroll. The judgment records that the respondent's name was amended on the file to appear as Sacred River Ltd t/a Sketch.
The full reasons were given orally at the hearing, and no written reasons were requested. The written judgment therefore records the outcome and the amount awarded, but does not set out a detailed written explanation of the tribunal's reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the claimant's complaint under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, that he had suffered unlawful deductions from wages under section 13, was well-founded to the extent of £296.29 and otherwise not well-founded. The respondent was ordered to pay that sum, subject to tax and national insurance deductions via payroll. | Upheld | — | £296 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £296
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 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.