Case 4106553/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Singh v Solutions You Group Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 4106553/2020
- Decision date
- 15 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Singh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Singh appeared in person and the respondent did not attend. The tribunal considered a claim for unlawful deductions from wages under sections 13 to 27 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, together with the effect of the respondent's voluntary liquidation under section 112 of the Insolvency Act 1986. On the evidence and documents before it, the tribunal found that Solutions 4 You Group Limited was the legal entity that employed Mr Singh from 1 July 2020 until his employment ended on 20 October 2020.
The tribunal found that at the date of termination Mr Singh was owed £3,544.10 in unpaid remuneration. He later received a partial payment, but £1,532 remained outstanding. That balance was made up of £1,200 arrears of wages and £532 unpaid commission. The tribunal accepted that the claim could continue notwithstanding the respondent's voluntary liquidation, and amended the case title to reflect that status.
Judgment was therefore entered for Mr Singh on the unlawful deductions from wages claim in the sum of £1,532.00.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found Solutions 4 You Group Limited was the correct legal employer. The award comprised £1,200 arrears of wages and £532 unpaid commission, leaving £1,532 outstanding after partial payment. | Upheld | — | £1,532 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,532
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- sections 13 to 27 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 112 of the Insolvency Act 1986
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.