Case 2304775/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr William Gormley v 186 Restaurant CO (in Voluntary Liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2304775/2022
- Decision date
- 14 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Fowell Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr William Gormley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Croydon hearing on 14 June 2023, Employment Judge E Fowell found that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from Mr William Gormley’s wages in the sum of £88.75. The judgment also records that the failure to make that payment was a breach of contract.
The tribunal applied the guidance in Walters t/a Rosewood v Barik when recording that the unlawful deduction award is a gross amount, capable of being satisfied by payment of the net amount to the claimant and payment of any tax and national insurance due to HMRC. No other remedy components are identified in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unlawful deduction from wages in the sum of £88.75. | Upheld | — | £89 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal also found that the failure to make the payment was a breach of contract. The judgment does not split a separate monetary award for this finding. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £89
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Walters t/a Rosewood v Barik
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.