Case 6004624/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Gayan Danushka Aponsu Goniyamaleemage v Stellantis &You UK Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 6004624/2024
- Decision date
- 23 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fairhurst
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Gayan Danushka Aponsu Goniyamaleemage
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 15 October 2024 before Employment Judge Fairhurst sitting alone, the tribunal noted by consent that the Respondent’s name should be amended to Stellantis &You UK Limited. The only complaint recorded in the judgment was unauthorised deductions from pay contrary to Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that the complaint was well-founded and that the Respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the Claimant’s pay in the sum of £180. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant the gross sum of £180 deducted from pay. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal’s rules.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from pay contrary to Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to be well-founded. | Upheld | — | £180 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £180
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.