Case 3334739/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 3334739/2018
- Decision date
- 20 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, Mr H Suffield, brought a claim for unlawful deduction from wages against BDO Services Limited. Sitting at Norwich, Employment Judge Postle held that the claim was not well founded. The tribunal found that the deduction was authorised under section 13(1)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The written reasons state that the Claimant's contract of employment authorised the deduction, and that the Training Agreement and Study Agreement also authorised it. The tribunal noted that those agreements had all been signed by the Claimant before the deduction was made. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the deduction was authorised under section 13(1)(a) ERA 1996 by the Claimant's contract of employment and by the Training Agreement and Study Agreement, all signed before the deduction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 13(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.