Case 2302052/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Abisola Balogun v Flavourtown Bakery Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2302052/2023
- Decision date
- 16 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Corrigan Appearances
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Abisola Balogun
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Abisola Balogun, brought a claim against Flavourtown Bakery Limited for unauthorised deductions from wages. Employment Judge Corrigan heard the case at London South by video on 16 June 2025. The tribunal found the wages claim successful.
The judgment records that £528 gross for holiday pay had been shown on the payslip as paid on 5 May 2023, but had not in fact been paid. It also records that a tax repayment of £88 had been declared as paid on the same date, but was not in fact paid. The tribunal therefore ordered the respondent to pay both sums, making a total of £616.
The tribunal noted that wages orders are made gross subject to deductions for tax and National Insurance. If tax and National Insurance are now due because payment is being made in a different tax year, that liability is for the respondent, so that the claimant still receives the net amount she ought to have received when the payment was recorded as made. The respondent's application for costs was refused.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal upheld the claimant's unauthorised deductions from wages claim. It ordered payment of £528 gross for holiday pay recorded as paid on 5 May 2023 but not in fact paid, plus £88 for a tax repayment also recorded as paid on 5 May 2023 but not in fact paid. | Upheld | — | £616 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £616
- 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.