Case 3201813/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Wurie v Flambard Williams Ltd FINAL HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201813/2023
- Decision date
- 5 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Wurie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal corrected the respondent's name to Flambard Williams Ltd. It then found that the claimant's complaint about unpaid commission was a well-founded claim for unauthorised deduction of wages. The tribunal awarded £500.00 in respect of that claim, subject to deduction of income tax and National Insurance.
The tribunal also found that when the proceedings were begun the respondent was in breach of its duty under section 1(1) or 4(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to give the claimant a written statement of initial employment particulars. It awarded the claimant two weeks' pay of £923.08, payable gross. The total monetary award on the judgment was £1,423.08.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant's complaint about unpaid commission to be a well-founded unauthorised deduction of wages and awarded £500.00, subject to deduction of income tax and National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £500 |
| Other | The tribunal found that when proceedings began the respondent was in breach of its duty under section 1(1) or 4(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to give the claimant a written statement of initial employment particulars and awarded two weeks' pay of £923.08, payable gross. | Upheld | — | £923 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,423
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.1(1) or 4(1) ERA 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.