Case 2401857/2023 · Employment Tribunal
(1) David Spencer (2) Nathan Spencer v Mersey Eco Grants Limited (in creditors voluntary liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2401857/2023
- Decision date
- 6 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Benson REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) David Spencer (2) Nathan Spencer
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that both complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages were well-founded. It held that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from both claimants’ wages in the period from 1 to 30 November 2022.
For the first claimant, the tribunal ordered payment of £1,620.35, described as the gross sum deducted and taken from the payslip for that period. For the second claimant, it ordered payment of £1,231.14, described as the gross sum deducted and, because there was no payslip, the claimant’s basic gross salary for that period.
The judgment stated that each claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance due on the sum awarded to them. A separate notice recorded that interest is payable under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, with a relevant decision day of 6 June 2024 and a stipulated rate of 8% per annum, but no interest figure was calculated in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint by the first claimant; the tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages for the period 1 to 30 November 2022. | Upheld | — | £1,620 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint by the second claimant; the tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages for the period 1 to 30 November 2022. | Upheld | — | £1,231 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,851
- 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.