Case 2502238/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Borland v JB Web Consultancy Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2502238/2022
- Decision date
- 15 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Borland
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Aspden, sitting alone at Newcastle by video on 18 January 2023, heard the claimant in person and recorded no attendance for the respondent. The judgment states that the claimant’s complaint that the respondent made deductions from his wages in contravention of section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded.
The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £1,625 for salary for 9 July 2022 to 8 August 2022 inclusive, £375 for the claimant’s notice period from 9 to 15 August 2022 inclusive, £220 to compensate the claimant for financial loss attributable to the unlawful deductions, and £675 due on termination in respect of accrued but untaken annual leave. The judgment states that the sums in paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) were subject to deductions the respondent was required by law to make and pay to HMRC for income tax or national insurance.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal upheld the section 13 ERA 1996 unlawful deduction from wages complaint and ordered payment of £1,625 salary for 9 July 2022 to 8 August 2022, £375 salary for the notice period, £220 compensation for financial loss attributable to the deductions, and £675 due on termination for accrued but untaken annual leave. The judgment states that paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) are subject to deductions required by law for income tax or national insurance. | Upheld | — | £2,895 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,895
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.