Case 3304841/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Latoszewska (Friend). For the v Mr S Hurton (Director). — 2021
- Case reference
- 3304841/2020
- Decision date
- 1 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bloom Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Latoszewska (Friend). For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by the respondent from 15 July 2019 to 18 March 2020. The tribunal found that the first three months of employment were a probationary period and that the proper rate for that period was £10.00 per hour. It accepted the respondent's evidence that the London Living Wage then applied after probation, and found that the relevant rate from 15 October 2019 was £10.55 per hour as a matter of the respondent's standard practice, but also accepted the claimant's evidence that he had been told his hourly rate would rise to £12.00 per hour after probation and that no extension of probation had been communicated to him.
On the evidence, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had worked 974 hours in the relevant period, rather than the higher figure he claimed. It found that he had been underpaid by £2.00 per hour for those hours, giving rise to an unlawful deduction from wages of £1,948.00. Judgment was therefore entered for that gross sum, subject to deductions for tax and national insurance contributions.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the claimant should have been paid £12.00 per hour from 15 October 2019 to 18 March 2020. It accepted the respondent's evidence that the first three months of employment were paid at £10.00 per hour, but rejected the assertion that the probationary period had been extended. It accepted 974 hours worked in the relevant period, producing a £2.00 per hour shortfall and an unlawful deduction of £1,948.00. | Upheld | — | £1,948 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,948
- 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.