Case 3202404/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Chaplin v Capitalusm Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3202404/2018
- Decision date
- 28 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Hyde
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Chaplin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge C Hyde sat alone at East London Hearing Centre on 4 March 2019. The Respondent did not attend and was not represented, and no written representation was received.
The tribunal held that Capitalusm Limited had unlawfully deducted £2,275 gross from Mr C Chaplin's wages. The deduction related to work on 4-7, 11, 12, 14, and 18-21 June 2018, together with agreed paid paternity leave from 25 June to 6 July 2018, calculated at £125 per day.
The only claim determined was unlawful deduction from wages, and that claim was upheld. The tribunal ordered the Respondent to repay the sum of £2,275 to the Claimant forthwith.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unlawful deduction from wages in respect of work done on 4-7, 11, 12, 14, and 18-21 June 2018, and agreed paid paternity leave from 25 June to 6 July 2018 at £125 per day. | Upheld | — | £2,275 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,275
- across all upheld claims
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.