Case 2501269/2024 · Employment Tribunal
C Philoxenides v Waste Managed Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2501269/2024
- Decision date
- 13 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden Appearances
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
C Philoxenides
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaint that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages by failing to pay overtime pay. It also dismissed the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal, which relied on Employment Rights Act 1996 sections 103A and 98.
The Tribunal upheld the claimant's complaint that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages in January 2024 by failing to pay salary. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally and does not provide written reasons or any remedy figures.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 alleging unauthorised deductions by failure to pay overtime pay was not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint of unfair dismissal relying on Employment Rights Act 1996 section 103A and section 98 was not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 alleging an unauthorised deduction from wages in January 2024 by failure to pay salary was well founded. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Rights Act 1996 s103A
- Employment Rights Act 1996 section 98
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.