Case 3200892/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms F Fitzsimmons v Lloyds pharmacy — 2023
- Case reference
- 3200892/2023
- Decision date
- 2 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gordon Walker
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms F Fitzsimmons
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the respondent made an unlawful deduction from the claimant's wages by failing to pay her £96.93 on 26 January 2023. The judgment records that the respondent later paid that sum to the claimant on 5 May 2023.
The tribunal also considered a separate deduction of £1,312.40 from the claimant's pay. It found that this deduction was authorised by a written term in the claimant's contract of employment, and dismissed that part of the claim as not well founded.
Claims and outcomes
2 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 | The tribunal found an unlawful deduction of £96.93 on 26 January 2023, but recorded that this sum was subsequently paid by the respondent on 5 May 2023. | Upheld | — | £97 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the deduction of £1,312.40 was authorised by a written term in the claimant's contract of employment. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.