Case 2410547/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Couchman Mr S Handley v Valley View Dalton Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2410547/2019
- Decision date
- 14 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Couchman Mr S Handley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely by video at Manchester on 13 July 2020 before Employment Judge Phil Allen sitting alone. The tribunal dealt with two claims against Valley View Dalton Ltd, one brought by Ms C Couchman and one by Mr S Handley, both concerning unlawful deductions from wages.
In Ms Couchman's case, the tribunal held that the respondent had made unlawful deductions from wages of £96.26 and had also made a further deduction of £216.10 in respect of annual leave. It ordered the respondent to pay Ms Couchman £312.36 within 14 days of the judgment.
In Mr Handley's case, the tribunal held that the respondent had made unlawful deductions from wages of £230.22. It ordered the respondent to pay Mr Handley £230.22 within 14 days of the judgment. The written record also included the tribunal's standard notice on interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, but no separate interest amount was set out in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unlawful deductions from Ms Couchman's wages of £96.26 and a further £216.10 in respect of annual leave, with a total payment order of £312.36. | Upheld | — | £312 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unlawful deductions from Mr Handley's wages of £230.22 and ordered payment of that sum. | Upheld | — | £230 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £543
- 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.