Case 6004289/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Mullineux v CJS3 Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6004289/2025
- Decision date
- 24 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Mullineux
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages against CJS3 Ltd. The tribunal, sitting at Manchester Employment Tribunal by video before Employment Judge Dunlop on 18 June 2025, found the complaint well-founded in part. The judge concluded that the respondent was entitled to deduct £345 related to a power-washer, but was not entitled to deduct £800 related to IT costs or £495.68 related to PPE.
The tribunal found that the unauthorised deductions had been made from the claimant's net (after-tax) salary, and ordered the respondent to repay the sums deducted in full. The total sum ordered to be paid to the claimant was £1,295.68, with no further deductions for tax and national insurance, as those had already been paid through the respondent's payroll.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing; written reasons were not provided in the judgment document.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages found well-founded in part. Tribunal held the respondent was entitled to deduct £345 (power-washer) but not £800 (IT costs) or £495.68 (PPE). | Upheld | — | £1,296 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,296
- 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.