Case 2217778/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Smith v Behold.AI Technologies Ltd RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 2217778/2024
- Decision date
- 24 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hindmarch Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Smith
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing heard in private by CVP on 17 July 2024, Employment Judge Hindmarch found that the claimant's complaint of unlawful deductions from wages was well founded. The tribunal held that the respondent had made unlawful deductions from wages in the period July to December 2023.
The judgment ordered the respondent to pay £1,540.98 in respect of pension deductions made during July to December 2023 and a further £10,000 in respect of salary for November and December 2023. The award was stated to be in gross sums, with the claimant responsible for any tax or National Insurance due.
No other claim types, legal tests, or remedy elements were identified in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the complaint well founded and awarded £1,540.98 for pension deductions made between July and December 2023 and £10,000 in respect of salary for November and December 2023. The sums were ordered gross. | Upheld | — | £11,541 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,541
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.