Case 3312156/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Unrepresented (Interpreter: Ms G Castagno) For the v Mr K Wilford, Solicitor — 2021
- Case reference
- 3312156/2020
- Decision date
- 19 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Unrepresented (Interpreter: Ms G Castagno) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Dia brought a claim for unauthorised deduction from wages, saying he should have received 80% of his salary under the Covid Job Retention Scheme. The tribunal recorded that he had been employed from 10 July 2019 to 30 June 2020, when his contract was terminated and he was paid one week's salary in lieu of notice.
The respondent had suffered a substantial loss of business during the Covid-19 pandemic and had initially laid staff off under their contracts, but it did not join the CJRS. The tribunal found that no staff were furloughed at the relevant time. It accepted the respondent's position that, because some limited working was still required to manage the remaining business, the claimant was not furloughed within the scheme.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant was not furloughed and therefore was not entitled to furlough payments. The claim was found not well founded and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was pleaded as an unauthorised deduction from wages, described by the claimant as 80% of salary under the CJRS. The tribunal found he was not furloughed and therefore was not entitled to furlough payments. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.