Case 2403202/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Hanson v Fuse Assurance and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 2403202/2020
- Decision date
- 24 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M Hanson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge Slater first removed Fuse Assurance as a respondent because it was a trading name rather than a legal entity. The remaining respondent was Fuse Assurance Solutions Limited.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's unlawful deduction from wages complaints. It found that the second respondent had made a series of unauthorised deductions by failing to pay the claimant his basic pay for 8 weeks' work, and ordered payment of the gross sum of £3,076.96.
It also found that the second respondent had made an unauthorised deduction by failing to pay commission earned, and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,717.75. The judgment therefore records total sums of £4,794.71 in respect of the wage deductions found to have been made.
The judgment is accompanied by the standard interest notice under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, but the extracted text does not record any separate interest amount or any additional remedy beyond the two gross sums awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the second respondent failed to pay the claimant's basic pay for 8 weeks' work, amounting to an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £3,077 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the second respondent failed to pay commission earned, amounting to a separate unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £1,718 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,795
- 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.