Case 3313499/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3313499/2022
- Decision date
- 24 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge H Lumby Dated
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Clifford Morris succeeded in his claim for unlawful deduction from wages against GOV Facility Services Limited, but only in respect of deductions within the two years up to 11 November 2022. The judgment states that the quantum for that successful element was to be determined separately.
All other unlawful deduction from wages claims made by Mr Morris were dismissed. The record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing, so the written decision contains only the result and does not set out a fuller written explanation of the tribunal's reasoning.
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 claimant succeeded in his unlawful deduction from wages claim in respect of the two years up to 11 November 2022. The quantum for that successful element was left to be determined. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | All other unlawful deduction from wages claims made by the claimant were dismissed. | 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.