Case 6008801/2024 · Employment Tribunal
S Steele v Neo Marketing Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6008801/2024
- Decision date
- 27 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
S Steele
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that S Steele’s complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded. It found that Neo Marketing Ltd had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages in the period from January 2024 to September 2024.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £7,001.24. It identified that figure as comprising underpayment of wages from January 2024 to April 2024 of £1,122.87 net, and underpayment of wages from May 2024 to September 2024 of £5,878.37 gross.
The written record also included the standard tribunal notice about interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, stating that interest may become payable if the award is not paid in full within 14 days after the relevant decision day of 27 February 2025, at the stipulated rate of 8% per annum. No separate quantified interest award was set out in the judgment text.
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 wages well-founded and ordered payment of £7,001.24. The sum was calculated as £1,122.87 net for January 2024 to April 2024 and £5,878.37 gross for May 2024 to September 2024. | Upheld | — | £7,001 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,001
- 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.