Case 3333906/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 3333906/2018
- Decision date
- 11 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Vowles JUDGMENT
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard evidence on oath from the claimant, Mr F Laguda. The respondent, CPL Scientific Limited (in liquidation), did not enter a response, did not attend, and was not represented. On the evidence before it, the tribunal found that the claimant had been subjected to an unauthorised deduction from wages within section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and awarded him £8,635.25 in compensation.
The judgment also dealt with claims described as redundancy payment, notice pay, and holiday pay. The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider those claims and dismissed them. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, with written reasons not to be provided unless requested within 14 days of the judgment being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages under section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996 and awarded £8,635.25 in compensation. | Upheld | — | £8,635 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to consider this claim and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim. The tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to consider it and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to consider this claim and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,635
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £8,635
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.