Case 3325685/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr Matthew Duxbury, Director — 2022
- Case reference
- 3325685/2019
- Decision date
- 7 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S.L.L. Boyes
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Cambridge on 18 July 2022, Employment Judge S.L.L. Boyes found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in respect of training fees and an exam fee. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £1,754.45 for that unlawful deduction.
The tribunal also considered deductions for PPE clothing in the sum of £147.74 and car cleaning costs in the sum of £20. It found those were authorised deductions, and the claims in respect of them were dismissed.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of training fees and an exam fee and ordered repayment of the gross sum of £1,754.45. | Upheld | — | £1,754 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The deduction for PPE clothing, said to be £147.74, was found to be an authorised deduction and the claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The deduction for car cleaning costs, said to be £20, was found to be an authorised deduction and the claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,754
- 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.