Case 3202645/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Orescof v Marsand Bespoke Furniture Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3202645/2020
- Decision date
- 29 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Orescof
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr D Orescof, brought a claim against Marsand Bespoke Furniture Limited for unauthorised deduction from wages. At the hearing on 29 March 2021, conducted by telephone with the parties’ consent because of Covid-19 travel restrictions, Employment Judge Gardiner found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction to the claimant’s wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The judgment did not quantify the deduction. Instead, the tribunal directed that the amount would be determined at a separate remedy hearing listed for 21 July 2021, to be conducted by Cloud Video Platform, and noted that separate directions were issued to allow both parties to prepare for that hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages contrary to section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996, but the amount was to be determined at a separate remedy hearing on 21 July 2021. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 13 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.