Case 3301903/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss B Louw v Marshall Eaton Holdings Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3301903/2023
- Decision date
- 3 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Islam Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss B Louw
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the complaint of unauthorised deductions from pay contrary to Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded. It ordered the respondent to pay £13,499.98 gross for unpaid wages for the period from 1 November 2022 to 28 January 2023, and £1,384.04 gross for pension contributions deducted from the claimant's salary but not paid into NEST between November 2021 and August 2022.
The tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay £894.40 net for financial loss in the form of interest incurred on a loan the claimant obtained to repay money borrowed for mortgage and bill payments. The tribunal found that this loss was attributable to the unauthorised deduction under section 24(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The claim for unpaid notice pay did not succeed because the claimant did not work her notice period. The claim for interest on unpaid wages also did not succeed because it was outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The award comprises unpaid wages of £13,499.98, unpaid pension contributions of £1,384.04, and £894.40 compensation for financial loss attributable to the unauthorised deduction under section 24(2) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £15,778 |
| Breach of contract | The claim for unpaid notice pay was not well founded and did not succeed because the claimant did not work her notice period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claim in relation to interest on unpaid wages did not succeed because it was outside the tribunal's jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,778
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Part II Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 24(2) Employment Rights Act 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.