Case 2601854/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Manayka Walia v MPC Investments Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2601854/2023
- Decision date
- 15 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Manayka Walia
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claims were presented in the Midlands East Region of the Employment Tribunals on 25 August and 5 September 2023. The respondent did not present a valid response to either claim, and Employment Judge Clark determined the matter under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal held that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages. It ordered the respondent to pay £758.07 as the gross sum deducted and a further net sum of £800 as compensation for consequential financial losses incurred as a result of the deduction, under section 24(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The judgment is short and does not set out any further reasons or separate remedy breakdown beyond those two sums. The total amount ordered payable was £1,558.07.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent failed to present a valid response and the matter was determined under Rule 21. The judgment expressly records one finding of unauthorised deductions from wages: £758.07 gross for the deducted wages and a further £800 net under section 24(2) ERA 1996 for consequential financial loss. The supplied text does not separately identify any breach of contract determination. | Upheld | — | £1,558 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,558
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 24(2) of the 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.