Case 2303207/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Payne , Counsel v Ms. Peckham , Solicitor — 2021
- Case reference
- 2303207/2019
- Decision date
- 25 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr.
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. Payne , Counsel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that on 5 September 2018 the claimant was guaranteed a minimum bonus payment of £34,000 for the year 2018-9. Only £17,000, less tax and deductions, was paid, and the claim for unauthorised deduction from wages under Part II of the ERA 1996 therefore succeeded.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the unpaid £17,000 through its payroll, less tax and NI due to HMRC, using the OT code because the claimant was no longer employed. It also ordered payment of a further £3,400 under section 207A of TULRCA 1992, representing 20% of the gross sum due, because the respondent failed to comply with the ACAS Code and did not engage in any discussion about the debt during or on termination of employment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the claimant had been guaranteed a minimum bonus payment of £34,000 for 2018-9, of which only £17,000 less tax and deductions had been paid. It ordered payment of the unpaid £17,000 through payroll, less tax and NI due to HMRC. | Upheld | — | £17,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,400
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £17,000
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- Part II ERA 1996
- section 207A TULRCA 1992
- ACAS Code
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.