Case 6002322/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Strong v Magna Services Group Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002322/2024
- Decision date
- 10 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Youngs Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Strong
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Bristol by video on 21 February 2025, upheld Mr M Strong’s claim for unlawful deductions from wages against Magna Services Group Ltd. It found that unlawful deductions were made in relation to the period 1 February 2024 to 15 February 2024 and ordered the respondent to pay £1,903.85, described as the gross sum deducted. The judgment states that the claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance on that sum.
The tribunal also upheld the claimant’s wrongful dismissal claim in respect of notice pay. It ordered the respondent to pay £865.38, described as the gross amount reflecting the likelihood that tax is payable on it as Post Employment Notice Pay. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sent record of decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim succeeded in relation to the period 1 February 2024 to 15 February 2024. The tribunal ordered payment of £1,903.85, described as the gross sum deducted. The claimant was responsible for any tax or National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £1,904 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The notice pay claim succeeded. The tribunal ordered £865.38, described as the gross amount reflecting the likelihood that tax is payable on it as Post Employment Notice Pay. | Upheld | — | £865 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,769
- across all upheld claims
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.