Case 3303492/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Darren Roberts v ADL Drywall Systems Ltd (in liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3303492/2022
- Decision date
- 15 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Darren Roberts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Reading on 11 April 2023, Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst found that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages. The tribunal awarded £15,000 gross on that claim and stated that it would be for the respondent to determine how much tax should be deducted from that sum.
The tribunal also found the claimant’s breach of contract claim to be well-founded. It awarded damages of £13,781 net of tax, broken down as £10,890 for employer pension contributions, £1,091 for reimbursement of expenses, and £1,800 for removal of fringe benefits, identified as a company car. Written reasons were not provided because reasons were given orally at the hearing and no request for written reasons was recorded in the judgment.
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 wages in the gross sum of £15,000 and noted it would be for the respondent to determine the tax deduction. | Upheld | — | £15,000 |
| Breach of contract | Damages were awarded in the net sum of £13,781, comprising £10,890 for employer pension contributions, £1,091 for reimbursement of expenses, and £1,800 for removal of fringe benefits, namely a company car. | Upheld | — | £13,781 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £28,781
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £13,781
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.