Case 2501622/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Morgan Keeling v Executive Event Solutions Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2501622/2022
- Decision date
- 2 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Morgan Keeling
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMorgan Keeling brought a complaint under section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996 alleging failure to pay wages for hours worked in May and June 2022. He said his contract provided for pay at £9.60 per hour. The respondent did not attend the hearing and did not participate in the proceedings. The tribunal heard sworn evidence from the claimant, found him to be a credible and honest witness, and accepted his oral and documentary evidence.
The tribunal found that the claimant was employed from 18 May 2022 to 15 June 2022 as a Stage Crew Member. After an earlier payment on 28 May 2022, for which no complaint was made, he worked a further 48 hours on 31 May, 1 June, 13 June and 15 June 2022. At the agreed rate of £9.60 per hour, £460.80 was properly payable for those hours. On 26 June 2022 the respondent paid £256.13, calculated on 37.5 hours at £6.83 per hour. The tribunal found that the respondent had reduced the hourly rate of its own volition and without contractual authority, and that the resulting shortfall was £204.67.
The tribunal held that the deficiency of £204.67 was a deduction from wages which was neither required nor authorised by statute or by the claimant's contract, and that it was made in contravention of section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996. The complaint under section 23 was therefore well founded and the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £204.67. Although the judgment noted that section 23 can also allow compensation for consequential financial loss, the claimant said he had suffered none, so the award was limited to the amount unlawfully deducted.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found a shortfall of £204.67 between £460.80 due for 48 hours at the agreed rate of £9.60 and the £256.13 actually paid. It held the deduction was unauthorised under section 13 ERA 1996 and ordered payment of the gross sum. | Upheld | — | £205 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £205
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.