Case 2602742/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Yazmin Robinson v Wellbet Equine Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2602742/2022
- Decision date
- 13 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton. Representatives
- Venue
- Midlands East
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Yazmin Robinson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Yazmin Robinson brought a claim against Wellbet Equine Limited for unlawful deduction of wages. Employment Judge Broughton, sitting at Midlands East on 13 February 2023, found that the deductions said to have been made in March and July 2022 were well founded, and ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant £313 gross.
The tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to January, February and April 2022 because those claims had been presented out of time. It also dismissed the alleged deduction in June 2022 because that element of the claim was not well founded. The judgment was given orally, and no written reasons were provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unlawful deduction of wages in respect of deductions made in March and July 2022; ordered gross payment. | Upheld | — | £313 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Alleged deductions made in January, February and April 2022 were presented out of time and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for an alleged deduction in June 2022 was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £313
- 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.