Case 2414511/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Waters v Carlos Matto t/a Oval Bookkeeping Company — 2020
- Case reference
- 2414511/2019
- Decision date
- 27 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sherratt REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Waters
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss L Waters brought a claim for unlawful deduction from wages against Carlos Matto t/a Oval Bookkeeping Company. No response was received. The tribunal recorded that Mr Matto was the only director of Oval Bookkeeping Company Ltd and that he had signed an application on 16 December 2019 to strike the company off the register. The tribunal noted the statutory warning on the form and the provisions of sections 1004 and 1005 of the Companies Act 2006, including the restriction on striking off where the company had traded in the previous three months.
On the basis of that application, the tribunal found it must be the case that the limited company was not carrying on business in October and November 2019 when the claimant was working. The tribunal therefore held that the claimant was employed by Mr Matto personally and that he was the correct respondent to the claim. It upheld the unlawful deduction from wages complaint.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £847.50. That figure was calculated from 22 days worked at £55 per day, giving £1,210, less £362.50 already paid.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant had worked 22 days in October and November 2019 at £55 per day, that £1,210 was due, and that £362.50 had already been paid. | Upheld | — | £848 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £848
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.1004 Companies Act 2006
- s.1005 Companies Act 2006
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.