Case 2405057/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Josh May v Grain Connect Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2405057/2022
- Decision date
- 18 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McDonald Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Josh May
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Manchester before Employment Judge McDonald on 14 October 2022, dealt with a single claim by Mr Josh May against Grain Connect Ltd. The written judgment records one finding only: that the respondent made an unlawful deduction of £1,213.76 from the claimant’s wages on 30 June 2022.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £1,213.76. No further reasons were set out in the short written record, and the notes state that reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
The accompanying interest notice states the relevant decision day as 18 October 2022 and explains that interest may accrue under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if the award is not paid within 14 days, but the judgment itself records no separate interest figure.
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 £1,213.76 from the claimant’s wages on 30 June 2022 and ordered payment of that sum. | Upheld | — | £1,214 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,214
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.