Case 3313798/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Bakhshalian For the v Mr Martin Reddington — 2023
- Case reference
- 3313798/2022
- Decision date
- 21 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Bakhshalian For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningSitting remotely by CVP at Cambridge on 22 June 2023, Employment Judge Brown found that the Respondent breached the Claimant's contract of employment by failing to pay the employer and employee pension contributions into her Nest Pension Scheme in accordance with the contract. The Tribunal awarded £7,631.36 as damages for breach of contract.
The Tribunal also upheld the Claimant's complaint that the Respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages contrary to s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996. It ordered payment of £24,252.23 as a net sum, with any income tax and national insurance due to be paid by the Respondent separately and without deduction from that award. The respondent name was amended by agreement to Martin Reddington Associates Limited.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The Tribunal found the Respondent breached the Claimant's contract of employment by failing to pay the employer and employee pension contributions into her Nest Pension Scheme in accordance with the contract terms. | Upheld | — | £7,631 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal found the Claimant's complaint under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996 well-founded and awarded a net sum; the judgment states any income tax and national insurance due are to be paid by the Respondent separately and without deduction from the award. | Upheld | — | £24,252 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £31,884
- 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.