Case 3200850/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Gregor v SKP and Daughters Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3200850/2023
- Decision date
- 11 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Appearances
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Gregor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr F Gregor succeeded in his claim for unlawful deduction of wages. The tribunal found that SKP and Daughters Ltd had paid him £5,206.15 gross when the correct amount due was £5,423.10, calculated as 30 x £180.77. The resulting gross shortfall was £216.95, and the tribunal ordered that sum to be paid to him.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to provide a written statement of terms and conditions of employment. Under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, it awarded Mr Gregor two weeks' pay, calculated at £903.85 per week, giving an award of £1,807.70.
The judgment records a total award of £2,024.65. It also notes that the figures are gross, so Mr Gregor is responsible for any Income Tax and National Insurance liabilities relating to the pay element separately to HMRC.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent paid £5,206.15 when it should have paid £5,423.10 for 30 x £180.77, leaving a shortfall of £216.95 gross, which it ordered to be paid. | Upheld | — | £217 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to provide a written statement of terms and conditions of employment and awarded two weeks' pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, calculated at £903.85 per week. | Upheld | — | £1,808 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,025
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 38 of the Employment Act 2002
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.