Case 2408290/2022 · Employment Tribunal
MR D SPELMAN v Md Productions Training Academy Limited, Md Productions Cic, Md Creatives Academy Limited and 2 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408290/2022
- Decision date
- 18 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cline
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
4 namedClaimant
MR D SPELMAN
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Liverpool on 16 January 2023, Employment Judge Cline sat alone and heard Mr D Spelman’s claim. The respondents did not attend and were not represented. The tribunal found that the claim against MD Productions CIC for unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded.
The tribunal ordered MD Productions CIC to pay Mr Spelman the gross sum of £5,250. The claims against MD Productions Training Academy Limited, MD Creatives Academy Limited, MissionNeed Limited and Miguel Doforo were dismissed. The written notice also stated that interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 would run from 19 January 2023 at 8% per annum if the award was not paid within 14 days, but no separate interest figure was quantified in the decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded against MD Productions CIC and awarded the claimant the gross sum of £5,250. The claims against MD Productions Training Academy Limited, MD Creatives Academy Limited, MissionNeed Limited and Miguel Doforo were dismissed. | Upheld | — | £5,250 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,250
- 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.