Case 3206106/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms O S Ashore v Clayhill Medical Practice — 2023
- Case reference
- 3206106/2022
- Decision date
- 19 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gordon Walker
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms O S Ashore
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 19 May 2023, Employment Judge Gordon Walker, sitting alone, upheld the claimant Ms O S Ashore’s claim for unauthorised deductions from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found that the respondent, Clayhill Medical Practice, had made an unauthorised deduction of £600 from the claimant’s pay on 30 November 2022.
The tribunal then applied a 10% uplift because of the respondent’s unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on grievance procedures. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £660.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction of £600 from the claimant’s 30 November 2022 pay and applied a 10% uplift for the respondent’s unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on grievance procedures. | Upheld | — | £660 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £660
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- ACAS Code of Practice on grievance procedures
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.