Case 3309899/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Rien Sach, in person For the v Mr Neil Rigby, Director of Finance for the Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3309899/2022
- Decision date
- 3 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Conley Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Rien Sach, in person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the Claimant’s claim for unauthorised deduction from wages was well founded to the extent that the Respondent had failed to pay the full amount of his discretionary bonus. It found that £11,202.30 of the bonus had been unlawfully deducted and ordered that sum to be paid to the Claimant, gross and subject to deductions for income tax and employee NICs.
The tribunal dismissed the separate claim that training course costs had been unlawfully deducted under the terms of a Training Costs Agreement. It also found that an alleged breach of the ACAS Code of Practice in relation to grievances was not made out, so no 25% uplift was applied.
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 found the Respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages by failing to pay the Claimant the full amount of his discretionary bonus. The sum was stated to be gross and subject to deductions for income tax and employee NICs. | Upheld | — | £11,202 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim that training course costs were unlawfully deducted from wages under the terms of a Training Costs Agreement was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,202
- 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.