Case 2409009/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Beaty v European Medical Reporting Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2409009/2023
- Decision date
- 4 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fairhurst REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Beaty
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the CVP hearing on 30 January 2024 before Employment Judge Fairhurst, Mrs C Beaty appeared in person and the respondent did not attend. The tribunal upheld her complaint that European Medical Reporting Services Limited failed to provide written pay statements, and it also upheld her complaint of unauthorised deductions from pay under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's pay for the period 1 June 2023 to 24 August 2023. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £2,188.20 deducted from pay. The written-pay-statement complaint succeeded, but the written record does not identify any separate monetary award for that complaint.
The written record of decision was sent to the parties on 4 March 2024. It also included the standard notice under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, stating the relevant decision day as 4 March 2024, the calculation day as 5 March 2024, and the stipulated rate of interest as 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaint of failure to provide written pay statements succeeded; the judgment does not specify a separate monetary award for this complaint. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from pay for the period 1 June 2023 to 24 August 2023 and ordered repayment of the gross sum deducted. | Upheld | — | £2,188 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,188
- 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.