Case 3315260/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3315260/2023
- Decision date
- 16 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim. It also dismissed the unlawful deduction from wages claim based on an alleged failure to pay a bonus for the period September 2022 to June 2023.
The claimant succeeded on the unlawful deduction from wages claim for non-payment of wages between 11 September 2023 and 29 September 2023. The order required the respondent to pay wages for that period, calculated by reference to a standard working week of 36.7 hours at £11.50 per hour, with deductions for tax and insurance, within 14 days of the judgment being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | This claim concerned an alleged failure to pay a bonus from September 2022 to June 2023. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered payment of wages for 11 September 2023 to 29 September 2023, calculated on a standard working week of 36.7 hours at £11.50 per hour, less tax and insurance deductions, within 14 days. No total sum was stated in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
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.