Case 3205010/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Williams v The Compound Newham Street Gym and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3205010/2022
- Decision date
- 17 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Jones Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms J Williams
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the liability hearing on 17 July 2023, Ms J Williams’s complaint of unlawful deduction from wages was heard by Employment Judge J Jones. The Respondents did not attend. The tribunal found that Ms Williams was a worker for both The Compound Newham Street Gym and Mr Raheel Butt, that she worked at the gym and also did separate legislative and PowerPoint work for Mr Butt, and that the parties had agreed pay at £10 per hour, ordinarily on a weekly basis.
The tribunal accepted that Ms Williams had not been fully paid for work done in summer 2021 and July 2022. It found that she prepared an invoice for £630, that Mr Butt received and accepted that invoice on 22 July 2022 on behalf of himself and the gym, and that he then refused to pay. The tribunal noted that the four days outstanding from 31 August 2021 had not been claimed within three months of 3 September 2021, but treated the later accepted invoice as covering the full amount. Judgment was entered for £630 payable forthwith.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Single unlawful deduction from wages complaint covering unpaid summer 2021 and July 2022 wages; the tribunal found the invoice for £630 had been accepted by Mr Butt on behalf of himself and the gym. | Upheld | — | £630 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £630
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- s.24 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.