Case 3201232/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Disu v Pearsons Recruitment Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3201232/2023
- Decision date
- 20 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reid Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Disu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningPearsons Recruitment Ltd did not submit a response to the claim and did not attend the hearing. The matter was heard by Employment Judge Reid at East London Hearing Centre by videolink on 20 October 2023, with Mrs L Disu appearing in person.
The tribunal found that the respondent made an unlawful deduction from wages contrary to s13 Employment Rights Act 1996 in respect of the weeks commencing 27 March 2023 and 3 April 2023. The deduction arose because the respondent did not pay the agreed hourly rate for the claimant's sleep-in shifts.
The tribunal quantified the sleep-in shortfall at £914 gross. It recorded the net amount payable as £740.34, based on an average of the tax and NI deduction rates in the payslips for those two weeks, and ordered payment within 14 days under Rule 66 of the Tribunal Rules.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment found an unlawful deduction from wages contrary to s13 Employment Rights Act 1996 for the weeks commencing 27 March 2023 and 3 April 2023 because the respondent did not pay the agreed hourly rate for sleep-in shifts. It quantified the shortfall at £914 gross and separately stated a net amount payable of £740.34 based on average tax and NI deductions. | Upheld | — | £914 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £914
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 66 of the Tribunal Rules
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.