Case 2407381/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A O Vaughan v MKDJLW1 Ltd (in creditors voluntary liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2407381/2024
- Decision date
- 29 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspinall Representation
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A O Vaughan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss A O Vaughan’s case was heard at Liverpool on 15 April 2025 before Employment Judge Aspinall. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent did not appear. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The tribunal upheld the claimant’s claim for unauthorised deduction from wages. It also upheld her claim for breach of contract in relation to deductions made but not paid to the pension provider. The judgment does not set out detailed findings of fact beyond the outcome and the sums awarded.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £6,223 in total. Of that amount, £4,623 was attributed to the unauthorised deduction claim, made up of a £1,623 shortfall in June and £3,000 for July salary. A further £1,600 was awarded for the breach of contract claim. The judgment includes the standard notice on interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, but it does not record a separate interest award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal upheld the claim for unauthorised deduction from wages and awarded £4,623, described as a June shortfall of £1,623 and July salary of £3,000. | Upheld | — | £4,623 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal upheld the claim for breach of contract concerning deductions made but not paid to the pension provider and awarded £1,600. | Upheld | — | £1,600 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,223
- 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.