Case 2602327/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Corbett v Monarch Marketing Enterprise Ltd Heard: via Cloud Video Platform in the Midlands (East) Region — 2023
- Case reference
- 2602327/2022
- Decision date
- 27 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Corbett
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr S Corbett was employed by Monarch Marketing Enterprise Ltd as Marketing Manager from 1 August 2022 until early September 2022. He worked throughout August 2022 under a contract providing for a salary of £60,000 a year. By the end of August he had been issued with a payslip showing gross pay of £5,000 and net pay due of £3,604.71, but he was not paid any salary for that month.
The respondent did not present a response, made no contact with the tribunal, and did not attend the hearing. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and considered his contract of employment and August 2022 payslip. It accepted that £3,604.71 was properly payable for the work carried out in August 2022 and that no payment had been made.
Applying section 13 and section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal held that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from wages in the sum of £3,604.71. The respondent was ordered to pay that amount to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to be paid £3,604.71 for work done in August 2022 and that this sum had not been paid. | Upheld | — | £3,605 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,605
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23 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.