Case 3300510/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Foan v Bristol Superlight Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3300510/2021
- Decision date
- 4 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Foan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found that Bristol Superlight Limited had made unauthorised deductions from Mr N Foan's wages in respect of salary and benefits during the period May to December 2020. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the net sum of £6,229 for that claim.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to provide Mr Foan with a written statement of employment particulars. For that failure, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay two weeks' pay in the sum of £718.
The tribunal did not make any award in respect of any period after December 2020 because the claimant had not explained the basis of any claim for that period. The total of the awards made was £6,947.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages in respect of salary and benefits during the period May to December 2020 and ordered payment of the net sum of £6,229. | Upheld | — | £6,229 |
| Other | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars and ordered payment of two weeks' pay in the sum of £718. | Upheld | — | £718 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,947
- 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.