Case 2401775/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss P de Gregorio v Baa Bar Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2401775/2020
- Decision date
- 22 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne Representatives
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss P de Gregorio
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss P de Gregorio brought a claim against Baa Bar Ltd for an unauthorised deduction from wages in relation to her bonus. The case was heard by Employment Judge Horne in Liverpool on 4 December 2020, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by its director, Mr A Donaldson. The hearing took place remotely on a video platform and neither party objected to that format.
The tribunal upheld the claim. It found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's bonus and ordered the respondent to pay £2,000.00. The judgment states that the award was made gross.
The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the judgment being sent to the parties. The accompanying interest notice states that the award is subject to the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, with interest potentially payable if the sum remains unpaid after the relevant calculation day, but no separate interest amount is stated in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's bonus and ordered payment of £2,000.00. | Upheld | — | £2,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,000
- 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.