Case 3207290/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I McCaffery v LJS Food Chelmsford Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3207290/2021
- Decision date
- 14 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Muir Wilson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I McCaffery
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr McCaffery was employed by LJS Food Chelmsford Limited as a Team Leader from 23 August 2021 on a salary of £23,000. His employment ended on 26 September 2021. The claim before the tribunal was for unauthorised deduction from wages for the period 1 September 2021 to 26 September 2021, after the Respondent withheld his final salary on the basis of training and other costs said to arise under paragraph 13 of the contract.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had signed a contract containing a probationary-period clause referring to possible deductions for recruitment and training costs if he left or was dismissed within the first three months, and a separate £50 uniform clause. It found, however, that the Respondent's evidence about the amount and composition of the alleged deductions was inconsistent and unreliable. The final payslip showed deductions of £676.15 for training and £962.41 for expenses, while Mr Stagg later referred to a total of £1,690.95 including hotel, train fare, uniform, training time and payroll administration costs. The tribunal also accepted that the claimant's uniform had been returned and that no deduction should have been made for it.
The tribunal found paragraph 13 was not sufficiently clear to authorise the deductions relied on, because it did not specify that a deduction would always be made, did not set out how any deduction would be calculated, and did not provide sufficient information about the potential level or staging of deductions. It held that the clause was, in the circumstances, a penalty clause and not enforceable against the claimant. The tribunal also found there had been no meaningful agreement or prior written consent to the deduction, and that the wages paid were less than the wages properly payable.
The claim therefore succeeded. The tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay the claimant £1,661.11 gross, being the agreed sum otherwise due for the relevant period. It recorded that there was no evidence to support any additional compensation for financial loss under section 24(2) ERA 1996, so no further award was made beyond repayment of the deducted wages.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim under s.13 ERA 1996 for wages withheld from 1 September 2021 to 26 September 2021. The tribunal found the deduction was not authorised by the contract, paragraph 13 was too wide and operated as a penalty clause, and the claimant had not agreed to the deduction in writing. | Upheld | — | £1,661 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,661
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- s.24(2) ERA 1996
- Delaney v Staples
- Agarwal v Cardiff University and Tyne & Wear Passenger Transport Executive v Anderson
- Yorkshire Maintenance Company Limited v Farr
- Commissioners for HMRC v Ant Marketing UK
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.