Case 2402616/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Thomas v Funky Owl (DAK) Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2402616/2019
- Decision date
- 5 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barker REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Thomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £311.60 within 14 days of the judgment.
The Tribunal also found that the respondent failed to provide the claimant with an itemised pay statement at any period during her employment, contrary to Section 8(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and orders payment of £311.60. | Upheld | — | £312 |
| Other | The judgment declares that the respondent failed to provide an itemised pay statement at any period during the claimant's employment, contrary to Section 8(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No separate monetary award is stated for this finding. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £312
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 8(1) of the Employment Rights Act 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.