Case 3307148/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C May v Abbey Security Services Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3307148/2023
- Decision date
- 19 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C May
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn a Rule 21 judgment dated 19 January 2024, Employment Judge Quill found that Abbey Security Services Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr C May's wages. The respondent was ordered to pay £824.72 gross, subject to any lawfully required PAYE deductions but without any other deduction or set off.
The judgment also made an additional award of £1,265.22, described as two weeks' pay, under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. The total amount ordered was therefore £2,089.94.
The judgment referred to an alleged breach of regulation 4 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, but it did not grant any declaration or remedy on that issue because it recorded that no complaint within the tribunal's jurisdiction had been raised in relation to it.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered payment of the gross sum of £824.72, subject to any lawfully required PAYE deductions but without any other deduction or set off. It also made an additional award of £1,265.22, described as two weeks' pay, under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £825 |
| Working time regulations | The judgment recorded an alleged breach of regulation 4 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, but no declaration or remedy was granted because the judgment said no complaint within the tribunal's jurisdiction had been raised in relation to that matter. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,090
- 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.