Case 2501772/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Palmer v Bishop Beds Limited HELD by CVP at Newcastle CFT — 2023
- Case reference
- 2501772/2022
- Decision date
- 4 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Palmer
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a final hearing of Mr T Palmer's complaint of unlawful deduction from wages against Bishop Beds Limited. The claimant did not attend the video hearing. Ms K Vinnicombe attended for the respondent and gave evidence that the claimant had been engaged on a two-month contract from 1 August 2022 to 30 September 2022, and that he had stopped attending work after Friday 23 September 2022.
The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence. It relied on the accountant's letter dated 24 November 2022, the P45 dated 19 October 2022, and the wage slip for the month ending 30 September 2022, which confirmed that £1,601.57 had been paid to the claimant. On that basis, the tribunal found that the claimant had failed to show any unlawful or unauthorised deduction from wages.
The complaint of unlawful deduction from wages was therefore found not well-founded and was dismissed. No remedy award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant had not shown any unlawful or unauthorised deduction from wages. It accepted the respondent's evidence that the claimant had received all monies due, including £1,601.57 paid for the month ending 30 September 2022. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.