Case 2404538/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Lee v Oaktree Childcare Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2404538/2023
- Decision date
- 28 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Lee
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal first held that the respondent's response was presented in time at 15:26 on 25 May 2023, so it was entitled to defend the claim at the final hearing. The substantive claim was for unlawful deduction from wages under section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that on 31 March 2023 the claimant's payslip showed a £1,200 balance remaining on a £1,500 employee loan agreed by signed agreement on 2 February 2023, and that only a single agreed monthly instalment of £300 should have been deducted. The deduction of £900 was therefore an overdeduction and an unlawful deduction from wages.
The tribunal also found that the claimant gave notice of resignation with immediate effect at 08:10 on 31 March 2023, without working contractual notice, and that the loan agreement provided for the balance to become immediately repayable on termination. On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimant suffered no ongoing loss.
Although the tribunal said that, in principle, the £900 could have been paid to the claimant and then recovered by the respondent as a civil debt, it concluded that this would not be in the interests of justice and would create unnecessary and disproportionate additional expense under Rule 2. The claim was therefore well founded, but no monetary award was made.
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 unlawful deduction of £900 from the claimant's wages on 31 March 2023, but recorded that no ongoing loss remained because the claimant resigned immediately and the loan balance became immediately repayable on termination. No monetary recovery was ordered because the tribunal considered that approach would not be in the interests of justice. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 2 overriding objective
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.