Case 2303081/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss. L. Bean v Andrew Cook — 2025
- Case reference
- 2303081/2024
- Decision date
- 24 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sudra
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss. L. Bean
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Sudra, sitting alone at London South on 24 January 2025, heard the claimant's claim of unauthorised deductions from wages under s.13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent failed to attend.
The tribunal found the claim well founded and upheld it. The claimant was awarded £165.51 in respect of unpaid wages and £193.59 in respect of unpaid outstanding annual leave, with the respondent ordered to pay a total of £359.10 within 14 days of the judgment being sent to the parties.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days. The written record does not set out further factual findings or legal analysis beyond the statutory basis identified.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid wages component of the s.13 ERA 1996 unauthorised deductions claim. | Upheld | — | £166 |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid outstanding annual leave awarded alongside the unauthorised deductions claim. Judgment frames the overall claim as s.13 ERA unauthorised deductions; the annual leave element is tagged here as holiday_pay. | Upheld | — | £194 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £359
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.13 ERA 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.