Case 3312596/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Suppo v Sheldon Phillips Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3312596/2022
- Decision date
- 5 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reed Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Suppo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Suppo worked for Sheldon Phillips Ltd as a Trainee Recruitment Consultant and signed an addendum dealing with a foundation course costing £995, which said the full cost would be deducted if he left employment within six months of the start of employment. When his employment ended in August 2022, the respondent deducted £995 from his final pay in respect of that course fee. The tribunal was satisfied that the clause was agreed on the basis that it would apply if employment ended within the six-month period, whether by dismissal or resignation, and rejected Mr Suppo's evidence to the contrary.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the £995 training-fee deduction from the claimant's final wages was an unlawful deduction of wages. It accepted that the addendum was intended to apply if employment ended within six months whether by dismissal or resignation, and also considered the National Minimum Wage point, but limited the award to £995 because no freestanding NMW claim was brought. | Upheld | — | £995 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £995
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Cleeve Link Ltd v Bryla
- Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi
- regulation 12(2)(a) National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015
- Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Leisure Employment Services Ltd
- Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Lorne Stewart plc
- s.17 National Minimum Wage Act 1998
- regulation 22 National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015
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.