Case 6015128/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Forrest v Associated Wellbeing Limited HELD AT: Liverpool — 2025
- Case reference
- 6015128/2025
- Decision date
- 1 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Forrest
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs J Forrest brought a single complaint of unlawful deduction from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 against Associated Wellbeing Limited. The hearing took place in Liverpool on 1 August 2025 before Employment Judge Johnson. The claimant was unrepresented and the respondent was represented by Mrs A Singh, solicitor.
The tribunal found that the claimant was not entitled to a profit related bonus. On that basis, the complaint of unlawful deduction from wages was held not well founded and the claimant's claim was unsuccessful.
The record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note on the judgment. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the claimant was not entitled to a profit related bonus, so the complaint under section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 13 Employment Rights Act 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.