Case 6007062/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Taylor v Freightport Logistics Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007062/2024
- Decision date
- 11 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McGough Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Taylor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss E Taylor resigned on 23 April 2024 and her employment ended on 24 May 2024. She claimed unpaid wages for 1-9 May 2024 and statutory sick pay for 10-24 May 2024. The Respondent relied on a contract and handbook term allowing deductions for losses caused by an employee's carelessness or neglect, and on a sickness-reporting procedure requiring absence to be reported by telephone and, where absence exceeded seven days, medical certificates.
The tribunal accepted that the Claimant did not comply with the sickness-reporting procedure. She reported absence by WhatsApp rather than by telephone and did not contact another manager when Miss Murray was unavailable. On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimed SSP of £186.80 was not 'wages properly payable' under section 13(3) ERA 1996, so that part of the claim failed.
For the wages for 1-9 May 2024, the tribunal accepted that the Claimant worked the relevant days apart from an authorised early departure for a doctor's appointment on 9 May. It then considered whether the Respondent had proved that the contractual deduction clause applied because the Claimant had caused losses through carelessness or neglect. Although the Respondent relied on further losses said to total £21,760.01, the tribunal was not persuaded by the evidence that the Claimant had caused the specific losses it relied on in the way alleged. It therefore found the deduction from the 1-9 May wages was not authorised by a written term of the contract.
On remedy, the tribunal accepted the Claimant's monthly gross pay of £2,333.33 and daily gross rate of £107.69. It calculated gross wages due for 1-9 May 2024 at £753.83, deducted £39.71 net already paid and grossed that up to £49.64, and ordered the Respondent to pay £704.19 gross. The ACAS Code was not applied and no financial loss was claimed beyond the wage deduction complaint.
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 | Part of the complaint relating to statutory sick pay of £186.80 for 10-24 May 2024. The tribunal held this sum was not 'wages properly payable' because the Claimant did not follow the contractual sickness-reporting procedure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Part of the complaint relating to wages for 1-9 May 2024. The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction because the Respondent had not shown that the contractual deduction clause applied to the losses it relied on. | Upheld | — | £704 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £704
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- Delaney v Staples (t/a De Montfort Recruitment)
- Agarwal v Cardiff University and anor
- New Century Cleaning Co Ltd v Church
- Guthrie v Scottish Courage
- Yorkshire Maintenance Company Ltd v Farr
- Fairfield Ltd v Skinner
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.