Case 6009547/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Maxwell v SEBIA UK Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6009547/2025
- Decision date
- 29 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Maxwell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant brought a claim under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in respect of an £830 deduction made by the Respondent to cover the cost of recovering a company vehicle following the termination of his employment. The Respondent's handbook contained an express written term providing that, on termination, the employee must return any company vehicle to the Respondent's premises, failing which the cost of recovery would be deducted from monies outstanding. The Claimant accepted he had received the handbook before the deduction and that the provision formed part of his contract.
The Claimant argued that enforcement was unreasonable given his partner's ill health and childcare responsibilities, that the Respondent had not suggested alternative arrangements, and that during his employment company cars had always been delivered to and collected from his home. Employment Judge S Moore accepted the truth of the Claimant's evidence about his practical difficulties but held that the Respondent was entitled to rely on the contractual term and to regard return of the vehicle as the Claimant's responsibility. The prior practice of home delivery and collection during employment did not vary or waive the handbook provision, because those occasions arose in different circumstances where employment was not terminating.
Accordingly, the claim for unlawful deduction of wages was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim under s.23 ERA 1996 for £830 deducted for recovery of a company car after termination. Tribunal found the deduction was authorised by an express written term in the handbook, which the Claimant accepted formed part of his contract; prior practice of home delivery/collection during employment did not amount to variation or waiver. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13(1)(a) ERA 1996
- section 13(2)(a) ERA 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.