Case 4110817/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. A O’Donoghue v Cetad Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 4110817/2021
- Decision date
- 30 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. A O’Donoghue
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A O’Donoghue was employed by Cetad Limited as an Administration Assistant from 5 November 2019 to 28 May 2021 on a salary of £20,000 per year. The tribunal accepted that his May 2021 gross pay was £1,666.67 and his net pay was £1,445.46. It also considered clause 16.1 of the contract of employment, but only in the context of whether it authorised deductions that met the statutory requirements.
The tribunal found that the respondent had relied on alleged deductions for rent arrears, sickness absence and rug purchases, but that there was no written agreement or prior written consent authorising any specified deduction from the claimant’s May 2021 wages. The WhatsApp message of 18 May 2021, the later correspondence and the handwritten note did not amount to consent to the respondent deducting a particular sum from salary. The tribunal therefore held that deductions of £562.01 were not lawful under section 13 ERA 1996 and upheld the unlawful deduction claim to that extent.
For the period 28 May 2021 to 31 May 2021, the tribunal found that the claimant had resigned on 28 May 2021 and had not worked after 27 May 2021, so he was not entitled to payment for those days. It calculated that May net pay of £1,445.46 less £132.78 for 28 to 31 May left £1,312.67, and after crediting the £750.66 payment on account it ordered the respondent to pay £562.01 net. The separate complaint in respect of arrears of pay for 28 May 2021 to 31 May 2021 was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of arrears of pay between 1 May 2021 and 27 May 2021. The tribunal held there was no written agreement or prior written consent authorising the deductions and ordered payment of £562.01 net, plus any Income Tax and National Insurance due to HMRC on that sum. | Upheld | — | £562 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of arrears of pay between 28 May 2021 and 31 May 2021. The tribunal found the claimant had resigned on 28 May 2021, had not worked after 27 May 2021, and was not entitled to payment for that period. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £562
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.13(1) ERA 1996
- s.13(3) ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- s.27(1) 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.