Case 3332305/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the Second Claimant: In person For the v Ms T Hudson — 2019
- Case reference
- 3332305/2018
- Decision date
- 23 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the Second Claimant: In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimants' claims for unauthorised deduction of wages were not well founded and dismissed them. It found that, during their suspension, both claimants had been paid their contractual pay and that there was no legal or other right to overtime. On that basis, there had been no deduction from pay properly payable and the claims failed.
The respondent applied for costs under Rules 75 and 76 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2001, arguing that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success. The judge accepted that point but declined to make a costs order. The reasons given were that the claimants said they had taken advice from a union representative and genuinely believed they had grounds to complain, the respondent had not produced a costs schedule, and the claimants were described as a young couple with a dependent and modest means.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that both claimants' claims for unauthorised deduction of wages were dismissed. The tribunal found they had been paid their contractual pay during suspension and that there was no legal or other right to overtime, so there had been no deduction from pay properly payable. | 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.