Case 2600703/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs F Smith v Tuxford Fabrication Solutions Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600703/2022
- Decision date
- 30 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Pinder
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs F Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 15 July 2022 before Employment Judge S Pinder sitting alone, the tribunal found that Mrs F Smith’s claim for unlawful deduction from wages against Tuxford Fabrication Solutions Ltd was well founded. The judgment records that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from the claimant’s wages.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £1,800.23 net in respect of the amount unlawfully deducted. It also ordered payment of a further £103.83 for financial loss attributable to the unlawful deduction, pursuant to section 24(2) Employment Rights Act 1996. The total sum awarded was £1,904.06.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the unlawful deduction of wages claim well founded and ordered payment of the net sum of £1,800.23 plus a further £103.83 for financial loss attributable to the deduction under section 24(2) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £1,904 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,904
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 24(2) 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.