Case 2405289/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Peters v John Black Solicitors — 2019
- Case reference
- 2405289/2019
- Decision date
- 25 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Peters
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss D Peters, brought a claim against John Black Solicitors for unlawful deduction from wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Employment Judge Ainscough sat alone and heard the case on 16 September 2019.
The tribunal upheld the claim. It found that the respondent had unlawfully deducted £261.53 from the claimant's pay, made up of £163.46 deducted on 6 April 2019 and £98.07 in accrued holiday pay.
The judgment ordered the respondent to pay that gross sum to the claimant. The written record also included an interest notice stating the relevant decision day as 25 September 2019, the calculation day as 26 September 2019, and the stipulated rate of interest as 8%, but no separate interest figure was set out in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal upheld the claim under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and ordered repayment of the gross sum deducted: £163.46 deducted on 6 April 2019 plus £98.07 in accrued holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £262 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £262
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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.