Case 2213221/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Horrobin v Amadeo Systems Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2213221/2023
- Decision date
- 15 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Akhtar
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Horrobin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr A Horrobin's claims for unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract were well founded. The respondent, Amadeo Systems Ltd, was ordered to pay a total of £1,526.18. The judgment was given orally at the hearing on 15 November 2023 and sent to the parties on 16 November 2023.
The unlawful deduction from wages award was calculated at £1,425.53. That figure comprised £1,211.54 for basic salary for 1 June to 9 June 2023 and £416.67 for car allowance for May 2023, less a deduction of £202.68 because that amount had already been paid to the claimant in July as a tax rebate. The breach of contract award was £100.65 for travel to work and postage return expenses.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions that may be due on the sums awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Award for unpaid basic salary for 1 June to 9 June 2023 and car allowance for May 2023, with a deduction of £202.68 because that sum had been paid to the claimant in July for a tax rebate. | Upheld | — | £1,426 |
| Breach of contract | Award for expenses for travel to work and postage return. | Upheld | — | £101 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,526
- across all upheld claims
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.