Case 2301770/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Hedley v LCE Architects Limited (a dissolved company) and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301770/2021
- Decision date
- 28 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Abbott
- Venue
- London South
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr D Hedley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D Hedley brought an unlawful deductions from wages claim against two respondents. The hearing took place at London South Employment Tribunal by CVP on 28 September 2022 before Employment Judge Abbott sitting alone. The respondents were not represented and the claimant appeared in person.
The tribunal found that the second respondent had made unlawful deductions from the claimant’s wages. It ordered the second respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £4,839.89 in respect of the amount unlawfully deducted.
The claim against the first respondent was dismissed because the claimant withdrew it. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note appended to the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the second respondent had made unlawful deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £4,839.89. The judgment does not split the award into components. | Upheld | — | £4,840 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim against the first respondent was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,840
- 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.