Case 2415158/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Elvis Ike v Intelling Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2415158/2021
- Decision date
- 10 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cline Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Elvis Ike
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 6 May 2022 before Employment Judge Cline, the parties resolved the monetary claims by consent. The tribunal recorded that Intelling Limited had made unauthorised deductions from Mr Elvis Ike’s wages, described as hourly pay and holiday pay, and ordered payment of £1,895.60 gross.
The tribunal also recorded, again by consent, that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s notice pay and ordered payment of £409.86. The judgment notes that this was a net figure but had been calculated using gross pay because the tribunal considered it likely the claimant would still pay tax on post-employment notice pay. The written record included the standard interest notice, but the judgment itself did not make a separate interest award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | By consent. The judgment states the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages in the form of hourly pay and holiday pay and must pay £1,895.60 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,896 |
| Breach of contract | By consent. The judgment states the respondent failed to pay notice pay and must pay £409.86 net; it notes this was calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that tax would still be payable on post-employment notice pay. | Upheld | — | £410 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,305
- 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.