Case 3201746/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Fejzo v Lillywhite Property Group Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201746/2023
- Decision date
- 27 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Street Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Fejzo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Street, sitting alone at East London Hearing Centre by CVP on 27 March 2024, declined to extend time for the Respondent to present a Response. The judge found the complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages to be well founded.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant £4,232.00 gross, representing the August 2023 pay due on 1 September 2023, from which the Respondent was directed to make the statutory deductions and remittances for tax and national insurance. The net sum payable was recorded as £3,025.50, with pension contributions excluded from the net figure to prevent double recovery given those contributions had been ordered to be refunded under an earlier Order of 4 March 2024.
In addition, the Respondent was ordered to pay £200 under section 24(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to compensate the Claimant for financial loss attributable to the unlawful deduction, payable in full. The total sum ordered was £3,235.50.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross pay for August 2023 of £4,232.00 ordered, net £3,025.50 after tax/NI and pension deductions, plus £200 under s.24(2) ERA 1996 for financial loss. Total ordered: £3,235.50. | Upheld | — | £3,236 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,236
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £3,036
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 24(2) 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.