Case 3307561/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Ward- Kong (Trade Union representative) For the v Mr Maratos (consultant) — 2023

Case reference: 3307561/2020
Decision date: 13 April 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Cowen Appearances

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr Ward- Kong (Trade Union representative) For the

Respondent

Mr Maratos (consultant)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The case was heard at Cambridge by CVP on 11, 12 and 13 April 2023 before Employment Judge Cowen. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and then sets out the outcomes in the written judgment sent to the parties.

All three claims recorded in the judgment succeeded. The claimant’s unlawful deduction from wages claim succeeded, with an award of £6,670.80. The unfair dismissal claim also succeeded, with an award of £892.40, and the wrongful dismissal claim succeeded with an award of £392.40.

The extracted judgment does not set out the tribunal’s oral reasons or any separate breakdown of the awards into constituent parts. On the face of the written judgment, the total amount payable by the respondent is £7,955.60.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	The judgment states that the claim for unlawful deduction from wages succeeded and that the respondent shall pay £6,670.80.	Upheld	—	£6,671
Unfair dismissal	The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim succeeded and that the respondent shall pay £892.40.	Upheld	—	£892
Wrongful dismissal	The judgment states that the wrongful dismissal claim succeeded and that the respondent shall pay £392.40.	Upheld	—	£392

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £7,956; across all upheld claims

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.