Case 2415813/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Towers v Adliz Leisure Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2415813/2020
- Decision date
- 12 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharkett
- Venue
- MANCHESTER via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Towers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss M Towers, worked for Adliz Leisure Limited at the Jolly Hatters public house as a part-time member of bar staff. The respondent did not enter a response and did not attend the CVP hearing, so the tribunal proceeded in its absence after being satisfied that the claim had been properly served and that the respondent had notice of the hearing.
The tribunal accepted the claimant’s evidence about the furlough arrangements during the first Covid lockdown. It found that although there was no written furlough agreement, the claimant had agreed to be paid £68.46 per week to stay at home. The claimant had in fact received £230 and then two further payments of £68.46, totalling £366.92.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the wages properly payable under the verbal agreement were £958.44 and that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction of £591.42 from the claimant’s wages. It ordered the respondent to pay that net sum to the claimant, with the judgment noting that tax and national insurance should be accounted for if not already done.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had never been provided with a written statement of employment particulars as required by s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996. Applying s.38 Employment Act 2002, and finding no reason not to make the award, it granted the higher additional award of four weeks’ pay at £68.46 per week, amounting to £273.84.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that £591.42 had been unlawfully deducted from the claimant’s wages. It found that the wages properly payable under the parties’ verbal arrangement were £958.44, and that the respondent had paid only £366.92. | Upheld | — | £591 |
| Other | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide a written statement of employment particulars required by s.1 Employment Act 1996 and made an additional award under s.38 Employment Act 2002 of four weeks’ pay at £68.46 per week. | Upheld | — | £274 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £865
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.