Case 2301793/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Mannouch v CoventGate Law — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301793/2022
- Decision date
- 12 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Mannouch
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 24 May 2022. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Tsamados Date determined that a decision could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that CoventGate Law had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages, comprising £1,750.00 for January 2021 and £726.75 for 01-11 February 2021. It ordered the respondent to pay £2,476.75 gross in respect of those deductions.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s 4 days’ holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £323.00 gross. The total amount payable was therefore £2,799.75. The judgment also records that the claimant is responsible for any sums owed to HMRC in respect of tax or national insurance contributions.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages of £1,750.00 for January 2021 and £726.75 for 01-11 February 2021, and ordered payment of £2,476.75 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,477 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s 4 days’ holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £323.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £323 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,800
- 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.