Case 2407229/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Nana v 2 Stories Bolton Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2407229/2023
- Decision date
- 10 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Nana
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge M Butler entered judgment under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 in favour of Mr S Nana against 2 Stories Bolton Limited. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £320.00 within 14 days of the date the judgment was sent to the parties. The judgment states that the claimant is responsible for any tax liabilities arising if the gross award is paid without tax being deducted at source.
The accompanying notice explains the tribunal's interest regime under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990. It records the relevant decision day as 10 October 2023, the calculation day as 11 October 2023, and the stipulated rate of interest as 8% per annum, but the judgment itself does not award a separate interest sum.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment; the respondent was found to have made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and was ordered to pay the gross sum of £320.00. | Upheld | — | £320 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £320
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21, Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, Article 12
- section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838
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.