Case 2300656/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O. Daniel v Sabio Recruitment Ltd (Company No 14556744) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300656/2023
- Decision date
- 28 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Yardley Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O. Daniel
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr O. Daniel’s complaint of unauthorised deductions from pay was well founded and awarded him £141.76. It also upheld his complaint that Sabio Recruitment Ltd failed to provide an itemised pay statement in accordance with section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The second successful complaint attracted an award of £111.00. The judgment states that the total sum awarded was £252.76. No other remedies are recorded in the extracted judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the complaint of unauthorised deductions from pay was well founded. | Upheld | — | £142 |
| Other | The tribunal upheld the complaint that the respondent failed to give an itemised pay statement under section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The remedy line refers to 'unnotified deductions from the Claimant’s pay', which appears inconsistent with the claim description but the award amount is clear. | Upheld | — | £111 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £253
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 8 of the 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.