Case 3201910/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Weawell v Nurture Chiropractic Clinic Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201910/2023
- Decision date
- 27 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howden-Evans Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Weawell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant’s complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded. It held that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages in the period July to August 2023.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £1,001.96, described as the gross sum deducted. The judgment also recorded that the claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance on that amount.
The tribunal added that interest would accrue at 8% per annum on any unpaid amount of the award 14 days after the date of judgment. It stated that, if the whole sum remained unpaid, this would accrue at £0.22 per day.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded. The respondent was ordered to pay the gross sum deducted for the period July to August 2023. Interest was directed to accrue under the Employment Tribunal (Interest) Order 1990 and s 17 Judgments Act 1838 if unpaid 14 days after the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,002 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,002
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunal (Interest) Order 1990
- s 17 Judgments Act 1838
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.