Case 2216663/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Irimia v Numeus Research UK Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2216663/2024
- Decision date
- 2 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nash Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr V Irimia brought a claim against Numeus Research UK Ltd for unauthorised deductions from wages under section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996. The case was heard by Employment Judge Nash at London Central by cloud video platform on 29 and 30 July 2024.
The tribunal held that the claim succeeded. It rejected the respondent's defence of rectification and mistake. No other claim type is recorded in the judgment.
The judgment records that the respondent shall pay £33,271.80 to the claimant under s24 Employment Rights Act 1996, by consent whilst reserving its position as to liability only. The award is recorded as a single figure and is not split between different heads of loss.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages under section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded. The respondent's defence of rectification and mistake failed. The respondent was ordered to pay £33,271.80 under s24 Employment Rights Act 1996, by consent whilst reserving its position as to liability only. | Upheld | — | £33,272 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £33,272
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s24 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.