Case 2405863/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Acquah v JWG Survey & Engineering Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2405863/2022
- Decision date
- 7 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Acquah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that JWG Survey & Engineering Limited made unauthorised deductions from Mr Acquah's final net wages totalling £491.15. Those deductions were itemised as £99.52, £227.19, £138.48 and £25.96. It also found that further deductions of £410.20 from the final wages were authorised, so only the £491.15 sum was unlawfully deducted.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's complaints that there had been deductions from holiday pay or overtime. It held that the only wages properly payable for the claimant's final day of employment were £25.96, so there was no deduction from wages by failing to pay a greater sum.
On breach of contract, the tribunal found that the respondent had not reimbursed £40 for telephone charges and £60 for safety boots. It awarded £100 damages for that breach. The judgment recorded that the total amount owing to the claimant was £591.15 net.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found four unauthorised deductions from the claimant's final net wages totalling £491.15, but held that a further £410.20 deducted from the final wages was authorised. | Upheld | — | £491 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent failed to reimburse £40 for telephone charges and £60 for safety boots, and awarded £100 damages for breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £100 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £591
- 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.