Case 2216021/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Roldan v Vinner Ltd Heard at London Central (by CVP) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2216021/2023
- Decision date
- 26 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shukla
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Roldan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Roldan brought a complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages against Vinner Ltd. The respondent did not appear. Employment Judge Shukla, sitting alone at London Central by CVP, found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages in the period March 2023 to August 2023, and that the deductions were a series of deductions.
The tribunal held the complaint was well-founded. It ordered Vinner Ltd to pay £2,635, described as the gross sum deducted. That figure comprised the balance of salary payment for August 2023 of £1,926 and employee pension contributions that had been deducted from the claimant but not paid to the pension provider, in breach of the agreed arrangements between the parties. The claimant was stated to be responsible for any tax or National Insurance due on the payment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found a series of unauthorised deductions from wages between March 2023 and August 2023. The award of £2,635 covered the gross balance of salary for August 2023 (£1,926) and employee pension contributions deducted from the claimant but not paid to the pension provider, contrary to the agreed arrangements. | Upheld | — | £2,635 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,635
- 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.