Case 6006429/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Gill v HCP247 Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 6006429/2024
- Decision date
- 11 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr V Gill, brought a claim against HCP247 Limited for unauthorised deduction from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The hearing took place at East London Hearing Centre by remote CVP on 11 December 2024 before Employment Judge S Shore. The respondent did not appear.
The tribunal held that the claim was well-founded and succeeded. It found that sums were due to the claimant for March 2024, for 1 April to 5 April 2024 inclusive, and for 8 April to 10 April 2024 inclusive.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £2,579.53 gross for March 2024, £595.28 gross for 1 April to 5 April 2024 inclusive, and £357.17 gross for 8 April to 10 April 2024 inclusive. The total payable was £3,531.98 gross, without deduction of income tax or National Insurance.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim under section 13 ERA 1996 well-founded. The award was itemised as £2,579.53 for March 2024, £595.28 for 1 April to 5 April 2024 inclusive, and £357.17 for 8 April to 10 April 2024 inclusive, making a total of £3,531.98. | Upheld | — | £3,532 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,532
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 13 Employment Rights Act 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.