Case 2403702/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Redmond v Dive Bar Concept Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2403702/2023
- Decision date
- 11 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Redmond
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, in a Rule 21 judgment, found that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £595.33. It also found that the claimant had not been given written itemised pay statements as required by section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Separately, the tribunal increased the award by the maximum amount of four weeks' pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 because the respondent was in breach of its obligation to provide a statutory statement of particulars of employment when the claim was presented. The respondent was ordered to pay £560 under that head, making the total award £1,155.33. The judgment included the standard notice that unpaid tribunal awards may carry interest.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £595.33. | Upheld | — | £595 |
| Other | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to give written itemised pay statements under section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and increased the award by the maximum four weeks' pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 because the respondent was in breach of its obligation to provide a statutory statement of particulars of employment at the time the claim was presented. | Upheld | — | £560 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,155
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.8 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.