Case 6010541/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Suna v Amandeep Singh and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 6010541/2024
- Decision date
- 16 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cowen
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M Suna
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the second respondent had made unauthorised deductions from Mr M Suna’s wages. It awarded £5,530 gross for that claim, made up of £4,122 unpaid wages and £1,408 unpaid overtime.
The tribunal also found that the second respondent had failed to provide the claimant with itemised pay statements contrary to section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It awarded £4,122 gross in compensation for that failure.
The judgment records a total award of £9,652, payable by the second respondent. No other remedies, legal tests, or panel members are identified in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the second respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages, comprising £4,122 unpaid wages and £1,408 unpaid overtime. | Upheld | — | £5,530 |
| Other | The tribunal found the second respondent failed to provide itemised pay statements contrary to s.8 Employment Rights Act 1996 and awarded £4,122 gross in compensation. | Upheld | — | £4,122 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,652
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.