Case 2501409/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Kirby v Stockton Riverside College — 2019
- Case reference
- 2501409/2019
- Decision date
- 9 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson
- Venue
- Teesside Justice Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Kirby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Johnson, sitting alone at Teesside Justice Hearing Centre on 29 July 2019, declared that Stockton Riverside College had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr J Kirby's wages in contravention of section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal's decision was limited to that wages deduction issue and did not identify any separate compensatory award flowing from it.
The tribunal recorded that the amount of the deduction had already been paid by the respondent to the claimant, and for that reason it did not award any compensation. The judgment therefore upheld the unlawful deduction from wages complaint but recorded no monetary award.
The respondent's application for costs against the claimant was dismissed because the respondent withdrew that application. The judgment otherwise contains no further substantive findings or remedy calculation.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal declared that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages contrary to section 13 ERA 1996, but found that the amount had already been paid and therefore awarded no compensation. | Upheld | — | — |
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.