Case 3202890/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Dean-Hill v Senglobal Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3202890/2022
- Decision date
- 12 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eva Whittall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Dean-Hill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 12 May 2023 before Employment Judge Eva Whittall, the parties agreed by consent that the respondent had unlawfully deducted £1,916.67 from the claimant’s January 2021 pay. The judgment states that the sum covered wages, notice pay and holiday pay, and that it was calculated as one twelfth of the claimant’s annual salary of £23,000. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay that sum to the claimant gross.
The claimant’s separate commission claim, brought as an unauthorised deduction from wages contrary to section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, was dismissed. The claimant’s redundancy claim was also not pursued to a substantive determination; the judgment records that it was dismissed on withdrawal from the claimant. No other remedy was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | By consent. The deduction was said to cover wages, notice pay and holiday pay for January 2021, calculated as one twelfth of the claimant’s annual salary of £23,000. | Upheld | — | £1,917 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for commission pleaded as an unauthorised deduction from wages under section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment records that the redundancy claim was dismissed on withdrawal from the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,917
- 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.
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.