Case 2602372/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Paul Lloyd v Elite Recruitment Group Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2602372/2021
- Decision date
- 20 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wilson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Paul Lloyd
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Nottingham on 22 March 2022 before Employment Judge Wilson sitting alone, recorded that Elite Recruitment Group Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from Paul Lloyd's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay £2,189 gross in respect of that claim.
The tribunal also found that the respondent failed to provide the claimant with a section 1 statement of terms and conditions of employment required by the Employment Rights Act 1996. Under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £2,176, described as four weeks' gross pay at the statutory cap. The written record states that the order was explained orally at the hearing and does not set out further reasons in the published record.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered the respondent to pay £2,189 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,189 |
| Other | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide a section 1 statement of terms and conditions of employment. An award was made under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, calculated as four weeks' gross pay at the statutory cap, in the sum of £2,176. | Upheld | — | £2,176 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,365
- across all upheld claims
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.