Case 3200045/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr DJ Christou v CPS Architecture And Design — 2020
- Case reference
- 3200045/2020
- Decision date
- 15 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McLaren Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr DJ Christou
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr DJ Christou brought claims against CPS Architecture And Design arising from deductions from wages and unpaid contractual sums. The respondent did not attend the hearing. Employment Judge McLaren heard the matter at East London Hearing Centre on 15 May 2020 and gave judgment on 19 May 2020.
The tribunal held that the complaint that the employer had made a deduction from wages in contravention of section 13 was well-founded and made a declaration to that effect. It also found that the breach of contract claim succeeded.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £1,564.66 in total. The judgment identified this sum as £1,218.71 for unpaid wages from 1 to 15 November and £345.95 for unpaid pension contributions. The judgment does not allocate those sums separately between the two successful claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the complaint that the employer had made deductions from wages in contravention of section 13 was well-founded and made a declaration to that effect. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the breach of contract claim succeeded. The judgment does not split the monetary award between this claim and the unlawful deduction complaint. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,565
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 13 ERA 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.