Case 3304032/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M.A. Toma v Bodea Ltd (company number 11365636) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3304032/2022
- Decision date
- 26 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M.A. Toma
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £1,047.00. The judgment also records that the respondent failed to comply with its statutory obligations to provide the claimant with itemised payslips.
The judgment further states that any complaint about deduction for PPE was treated as withdrawn because the claimant accepted that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to deal with it. No separate remedy is recorded for the payslip finding, and the award is limited to the wage deduction sum ordered under paragraph 1.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,047.00. | Upheld | — | £1,047 |
| Other | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with its statutory obligations to provide itemised payslips. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint about deduction for PPE was treated as withdrawn after the claimant accepted the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to deal with it. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,047
- 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.