Case 3302976/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Monteiro v Royal Mail Group Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302976/2024
- Decision date
- 25 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pirani Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 24 March 2025, Regional Employment Judge Pirani recorded the Respondent's concession that it had unlawfully deducted £766.12 from the Claimant's wages, contrary to s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996. The Tribunal made a declaration to that effect and ordered Royal Mail Group Ltd to pay £766.12 to the Claimant under s.24 Employment Rights Act 1996, as claimed in her schedule of loss.
The judgment also states that the Claimant's other claims were dismissed on withdrawal. The Final and Preliminary Hearing listed for 28 March 2025 was cancelled. The judgment does not identify the withdrawn claims individually.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Respondent conceded an unlawful deduction of £766.12 from wages in breach of s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996, and the Tribunal ordered payment under s.24 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £766 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment says the Claimant's other claims were dismissed on withdrawal; this claim type is reflected from the case listing and is not identified individually in the judgment. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Trade union | The judgment says the Claimant's other claims were dismissed on withdrawal; this claim type is reflected from the case listing and is not identified individually in the judgment. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £766
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.24 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.