Case 2415201/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Taylor v BMS Solicitors — 2020
- Case reference
- 2415201/2019
- Decision date
- 14 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howard Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Taylor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs M Taylor’s claim against BMS Solicitors for unpaid wages under Part II of the ERA 1996 succeeded. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay her £597.29.
The judgment does not set out any separate findings beyond the success of the unpaid wages claim, and it does not split the award into component heads of loss. The monetary figure given is the total sum ordered.
A standard Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 notice followed the judgment, stating the relevant decision day as 14 February 2020, the calculation day as 15 February 2020, and the stipulated rate of interest as 8% if the award remained unpaid after 14 days. No separate interest sum was quantified in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the claimant’s claim for unpaid wages under Part II of the ERA 1996 succeeded and ordered payment of £597.29. | Upheld | — | £597 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £597
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.