Case 2600115/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Marshall Mr C P Schofield v Black Cat Travel Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2600115/2024
- Decision date
- 12 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Marshall Mr C P Schofield
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Marshall and Mr Schofield each brought an unauthorised deductions from wages claim against Black Cat Travel Limited. The tribunal found that Ms Marshall’s claim, for £550.00, succeeded, and that Mr Schofield’s claim, for £300.00, also succeeded.
Although both claims succeeded, the tribunal recorded that the respondent had already paid the sums claimed to the claimants. In accordance with section 25(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal therefore made no order for payment of any further sums to either claimant.
The tribunal also noted that no claims for failure to provide statements of particulars under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 had been pleaded, so it had no jurisdiction to hear such claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Ms Marshall’s claim for unauthorised deductions from wages in the sum of £550.00 succeeded, but the tribunal recorded that the respondent had already paid the sum claimed and made no further order for payment under section 25(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Mr Schofield’s claim for unauthorised deductions from wages in the sum of £300.00 succeeded, but the tribunal recorded that the respondent had already paid the sum claimed and made no further order for payment under section 25(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 25(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 1 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.