Case 6024438/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Covei v Castlefield Hospitality Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6024438/2025
- Decision date
- 7 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Covei
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Anderson held at the hearing on 7 May 2026 that Miss E Covei's claims against Castlefield Hospitality Limited for unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract were well founded. Miss Covei appeared in person and the respondent did not attend. Reasons were given orally, and the written judgment records no further findings or reasoning.
The respondent was ordered to pay Miss Covei £1,381.71, without apportioning that sum between the two claims. The tribunal recorded that the deductions had been made from her pay on a net basis, so she had already paid tax and National Insurance on the gross pay she should have received and was not required to account further to HM Revenue and Customs for the award. No fixed interest sum was awarded; the accompanying notice stated that conditional statutory interest would apply if the award remained unpaid after the applicable 14-day period.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The £1,381.71 award was made in aggregate and was not apportioned between this claim and the breach of contract claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The £1,381.71 award was made in aggregate and was not apportioned between this claim and the unlawful deduction from wages claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,382
- 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.