Case 6008276/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Procter-Harris v UK NRG Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6008276/2024
- Decision date
- 14 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Walker Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Procter-Harris
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant's complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded. It held that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages for the period 19 February 2024 to 23 February 2024 and ordered payment of the gross sum deducted.
The tribunal also found that the respondent failed to give the claimant written itemised pay statements for February 2024 and was in breach of its duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars when proceedings began. It awarded an amount equal to two weeks' gross pay under section 38 Employment Act 2002 and declined to award four weeks' gross pay.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded for the period 19 February 2024 to 23 February 2024. | Upheld | — | £231 |
| Other | The tribunal found failures to provide written itemised pay statements and a written statement of employment particulars; the monetary award was made under section 38 Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £769 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.