Case 2413112/2023 · Employment Tribunal
J Wilson Sykes v Galahad Legal and Financial Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2413112/2023
- Decision date
- 25 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
J Wilson Sykes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Galahad Legal and Financial Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from J Wilson Sykes's wages. Under Rule 21, Employment Judge KM Ross ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £1,750.87.
The award was broken down as £358 for underpayment of wages from October 2023, £758 for underpayment of wages from November 2023, £337.50 for an underpayment where the claimant was paid less than the National Minimum Wage, and £297.37 for a further National Minimum Wage underpayment period. The judgment stated that the claimant would be responsible for any tax liabilities arising if tax was not deducted at source.
The notice attached to the judgment stated that the hearing listed for 27 August 2024 was cancelled. It also set out that interest would be payable under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if the sum was not paid within 14 days, with the stipulated rate given as 8% per annum, but no interest figure was calculated in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,750.87. The extracted text records one NMW underpayment period as 'August 2023 to December 2022', which appears internally inconsistent, but the total award and the other figures are clear. | Upheld | — | £1,751 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,751
- 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.