Case 3205766/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Anton Booth v PERI Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3205766/2022
- Decision date
- 15 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Misra KC
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Anton Booth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 6 June 2023 before Employment Judge Misra KC, Mr Anton Booth pursued complaints of unauthorised deduction of wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, including a commission claim said to be £2,735.97 and a separate claim about notice monies said to be due under the contract. The tribunal held that both complaints were not well founded and dismissed them.
The tribunal also recorded that the respondent had not unreasonably breached the ACAS Code on disciplinary and grievance matters, but that there was in any event no compensation which could be uplifted under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations legislation. The respondent's counterclaim was dismissed, and the tribunal said there was no breach of contract claim against which it could be pursued. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint under section 13 ERA 1996 in respect of commission said to be £2,735.97. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint concerning notice monies said to be due under the contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Respondent's counterclaim; the tribunal said there was no breach of contract claim against which it could be pursued. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- ACAS Code on disciplinary and grievance matters
- s.207A TULR(C)A
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.