Case 2411251/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Dayala v Mr J Dunleavy t/a ERK Automotive — 2019
- Case reference
- 2411251/2019
- Decision date
- 27 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Dayala
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Manchester Employment Tribunal on 15 November 2019, Employment Judge Dunlop sitting alone found that the respondent, Mr J Dunleavy t/a ERK Automotive, had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages. The judgment was issued under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant, Mr I Dayala, the gross sum of £544.00 in respect of that unlawful deduction claim. No separate split of remedy by head of loss was given in the judgment.
The accompanying notice on interest explained the operation of the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990. It stated that if the sum was not paid within 14 days after the relevant decision day, interest would accrue from the calculation day at the stipulated rate of 8%, but the judgment did not quantify any interest amount.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £544.00. | Upheld | — | £544 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £544
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.