Case 3303931/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Higham, Father For the v Mr J Herbert, Manager — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303931/2024
- Decision date
- 20 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Higham, Father For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Norwich on 17 February 2025, Employment Judge Postle considered two wage-deduction issues in the claim brought by Miss T Higham against Almond Tree Care Limited. The tribunal held that the deduction made for damage to the company car was lawful because it was authorised by the claimant's signed contract of employment, so that aspect of the claim failed.
The tribunal also found that the deduction said to relate to training costs was not lawful. It found that those costs were the claimant's standard induction for employment with the respondent, and ordered the respondent to pay £500 to the claimant. The judgment records no separate award of interest or any other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the deduction from wages for damage to the company car was a lawful deduction authorised by the claimant's signed contract of employment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the deduction in respect of alleged training costs was an unlawful deduction because the costs were the claimant's standard induction for the respondent's employment. | Upheld | — | £500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £500
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £500
- 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.