Case 3202525/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Edward Boyce v Pebble and Leaf Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3202525/2020
- Decision date
- 27 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Taylor Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Edward Boyce
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case by remote audio hearing on 27 January 2021. Mr Edward Boyce said he had worked for Pebble and Leaf Ltd as a general assistant from 30 March 2020 to 3 August 2020, working 9.00am to 4.00pm and at other times as required. The respondent did not present a completed response form and did not attend to contest the claim.
The claimant produced a schedule of unpaid amounts with corresponding time sheets, together with an unsigned witness statement from a respondent employee supporting the claim. The tribunal recorded the unpaid items as 30 May to 5 June 2020 (£0.50), 22 June to 26 June 2020 (£102.50), 29 June to 3 July 2020 (£162.50), 20 July to 24 July 2020 (£192.50), 27 July to 31 July 2020 (£130.00), and 3 August 2020 (£40.00), making a total of £628. The claimant confirmed that no further payments had been made by the date of the hearing.
Applying section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages. Judgment was entered for the claimant in the sum of £628 gross, being the total of the unauthorised deductions.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £628 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £628
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.13 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.