Case 3201687/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs G Bililo Kabangu David v Verrolyne Services Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 3201687/2019
- Decision date
- 18 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Martin Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs G Bililo Kabangu David
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent told the tribunal at the start of the hearing that the £402.20 claimed for unlawful deduction from wages had been paid into the claimant solicitor's account on the preceding Friday. The tribunal adjourned so that the claimant's solicitor could check receipt, and when the case resumed the solicitor confirmed that the sum had been received, although apparently without their authorisation.
The tribunal considered s.24(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and concluded that it could not make the declaration and order the respondent to pay the amount claimed because the money had already been paid, albeit very late. It then considered s.24(2) and said that the claimant's request for financial loss arising from the failure to pay outstanding wages could not proceed, because there was no basis under that provision to consider such an order once the sum had been paid.
The judgment line records that the claimant's complaint of breach of contract was dismissed. Oral reasons were given at the hearing, and the decision does not record any separate monetary award by the tribunal.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment line states that the claimant's complaint of breach of contract was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal recorded that £402.20 had been paid into the claimant solicitor's account before the hearing resumed, and held under s.24(1) ERA 1996 that it could not make the declaration or order sought. It also said there was no basis under s.24(2) ERA 1996 to consider an order for financial loss once the sum had been paid, albeit late. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.24(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.24(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 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.