Case 2302303/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Boxer v CPS Office Supplies Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2302303/2019
- Decision date
- 27 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Corrigan
- Venue
- Ashford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Boxer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Corrigan, sitting alone in Ashford on 26 November 2019, amended the respondent's name to CPS Office Supplies Limited and refused the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's claims. The tribunal held that the claimant's complaint of unlawful deduction of wages was well-founded. It ordered the respondent to pay £231 subject to deductions for tax and National Insurance, made up of a £25 car valet deduction and £206 commission on turnover up to 22 May 2019.
The tribunal also upheld the claimant's breach of contract claim relating to loss of a fully funded car and awarded £392 damages. It recorded the total payable by the respondent as £623, subject to the deductions noted for the wages element. The claimant's TUPE complaint, described as a failure to inform and consult in relation to TUPE, was dismissed upon withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment held the complaint well-founded and ordered payment of £231, subject to deductions for tax and National Insurance. This sum comprised £25 for a car valet deduction and £206 commission on turnover up to 22 May 2019. | Upheld | — | £231 |
| Breach of contract | The claimant succeeded on the breach of contract claim concerning loss of a fully funded car and was awarded £392 damages. | Upheld | — | £392 |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The judgment records the TUPE complaint about failure to inform and consult as 'dismissed upon withdrawal'. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £623
- 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.