Case 4100848/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v WWN Enterprise Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 4100848/2023
- Decision date
- 27 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tinnion
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Mario De Gennaro brought claims against WWN Enterprise Ltd in relation to wages and pay documentation for the period 1 to 26 October 2022. The tribunal found his unauthorised deduction from wages claim under s.13(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 well-founded because the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's wages for that period.
The tribunal awarded £1,962.58, described as 26/31 of the claimant's net monthly wage of £2,340. It also found the claimant's complaint under s.8(1) ERA 1996 about the absence of a written itemised pay statement for the same period to be well founded, and made a declaration to that effect under s.12(3)(a) ERA 1996.
The tribunal recorded that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claimant's requests for a P45 following termination of employment on 26 October 2022, clarification of taxes withheld and/or deductions made since 1 June 2022, or his employee ID number left blank on earlier payslips.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the unauthorised deduction from wages claim under s.13(1) ERA 1996 well-founded in respect of unpaid wages for 1-26 October 2022. | Upheld | — | £1,963 |
| Other | The tribunal found the claimant's complaint under s.8(1) ERA 1996 about the absence of a written itemised pay statement for 1-26 October 2022 well founded and made a declaration under s.12(3)(a). | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,963
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.13(1) ERA 1996
- s.8(1) ERA 1996
- s.12(3)(a) ERA 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.