Case 3331761/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Maestri v Martin Plank – The Beer Clear Company — 2019
- Case reference
- 3331761/2018
- Decision date
- 4 January 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Maestri
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a rule 21 judgment in favour of Ms M Maestri against Martin Plank, The Beer Clear Company. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £107.69 gross, noting that payment of the net amount would satisfy the judgment debt if the respondent paid the relevant tax and national insurance to HMRC.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant in lieu of entitlement to annual leave. It ordered payment of £1,023.55 for that claim.
A further claim for damages for breach of contract, described as expenses, succeeded. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £31.37. The total of the awards recorded in the judgment was £1,162.61.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages. The award was stated to be the gross amount; if the respondent pays tax and national insurance due to HMRC, payment of the net amount would satisfy the judgment debt. | Upheld | — | £108 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant in lieu of entitlement to annual leave. | Upheld | — | £1,024 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal upheld the claimant's damages claim for breach of contract in respect of expenses. | Upheld | — | £31 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,163
- 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.