Case 2410186/2019 · Employment Tribunal
1. Miss R Harrison 2. Miss J Dyke v Adagio Gift Stores Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2410186/2019
- Decision date
- 2 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
1. Miss R Harrison 2. Miss J Dyke
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Liverpool on 11 October 2019, Employment Judge Horne held that Adagio Gift Stores Ltd had made unlawful deductions from wages in respect of both Miss R Harrison and Miss J Dyke. The judgment ordered the respondent to pay Miss Harrison £4,098.72 and Miss Dyke £769.27, each sum subject to deductions for tax and national insurance, and fixed 8 November 2019 as the specified date for payment.
The extracted record does not set out the tribunal’s oral reasons in detail, but it notes that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. It also records that the only disputed part of the judgment was paragraph 3, which concerned the payment date, and that the parties’ common understanding was that the net wages payable were £2,076.83 for Miss Harrison and £769.27 for Miss Dyke.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the respondent made an unlawful deduction from Miss Harrison’s wages and ordered payment of £4,098.72 subject to deductions for tax and national insurance. The record notes the parties’ common understanding that the net wages payable were £2,076.83. | Upheld | — | £4,099 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the respondent made an unlawful deduction from Miss Dyke’s wages and ordered payment of £769.27 subject to deductions for tax and national insurance. The record notes the parties’ common understanding that the net wages payable were £769.27. | Upheld | — | £769 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,868
- 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.