Unauthorised Deductions from Wages
Employer: ACS Group Service Ltd
The respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in August 2024.
Browse recent Employment Tribunal decisions heard at Reading.
£58,026.81 combined
Published decisions
Newest decisions first
Employer: ACS Group Service Ltd
The respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in August 2024.
Employer: Alser (UK) Ltd
The respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's pay and must repay the amounts withheld.
Employer: Surrey Security Systems Ltd
The complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and was dismissed; the unlawful deductions claim was withdrawn.
Employer: POhWER Advocacy Service
The respondent's application to strike out the claim was dismissed.
Employer: LHR Airports Ltd
The Tribunal found that all claims of direct discrimination, harassment, and victimisation were not well-founded and therefore failed.
Employer: British Gas Services Ltd
The Tribunal found that the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal, breach of contract, and disability discrimination were not well-founded and were dismissed.
Employer: Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust and Others
The tribunal found that the complaints were not presented within the primary time limit, but it was not reasonably practicable to do so, and they were presented within a further reasonable period, so the claims will proceed to a full hearing.
Employer: Serco Ltd
The tribunal found that the dismissal was fair (based on ill-health capability and conducted reasonably) and that there was no unfavourable treatment or failure to make reasonable adjustments relating to the claimant's disability.
Employer: Warrens Warehouse & Distribution (Midlands) Ltd
The claim was dismissed because the claimant failed to attend the preliminary hearing and did not provide a sufficient basis for her amendment or any explanation for her absence.
Employer: Oxfordshire County Council and S Tomlin
The claimant succeeded in his claim that he was subjected to unlawful detriments via negative references due to protected disclosures, but his other claims were dismissed.
Employer: John Lewis plc
Both complaints were dismissed as not well-founded after the tribunal heard the evidence.
Employer: Sudbury House Ltd
Both claims were dismissed as not well-founded after the tribunal found insufficient evidence to support them.
Employer: Remass Ltd
Both complaints of breach of contract (notice pay and holiday pay) were dismissed as not well-founded.
Employer: The Co-operative Group Ltd
All claims were dismissed either because the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction (claims presented out of time) or because the disability discrimination complaints were found not well-founded.
Employer: Nurture Landscapes Ltd
The judgment only deals with the respondent's costs application, which was refused; no substantive claim was decided.
Employer: Wilson James Ltd
All claims were dismissed as not well-founded.
Employer: Slough Borough Council
The Tribunal set aside the previous default judgment and granted the respondent an extension of time to file their response, meaning the case will now proceed to a full hearing on the merits.
Employer: Secretary of State for Justice
The Tribunal upheld multiple complaints of direct sex discrimination and harassment related to both sex and vegan beliefs, awarding compensation for financial loss, personal injury, and injury to feelings.
Employer: H&H Industries Ltd and Secretary of State
The claim was dismissed because the claimant failed to attend the hearing without providing an acceptable reason.
Employer: The Chancellor Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford
The claimant failed to establish that his asthma (aggravated by hay fever) had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities at the relevant time, and the actual effects of treated hay fever did not meet the threshold.
Employer: Ingenious Power Engineering
The deduction was unauthorised because the employer failed to prove the claimant's negligence was the cause of the damage, given its own failures to provide a lifting plan and a trained banksman, and the claimant's obscured view of the excavator tracks.
Employer: Oxford Brookes University
The claim was struck out because the claimant failed to provide any factual basis for his claims, deliberately omitted details, and the claim form did not comply with basic pleading requirements, making it impossible for the respondent to respond sensibly.
Employer: Nightingale Residential Care Home Ltd
Claimant succeeded on claims for wrongful dismissal, race discrimination, unlawful deductions, and s207A uplift, but his claim for automatic unfair dismissal was dismissed.
Employer: Leisuredyne Resources Ltd
The tribunal could not consider the complaints because they were presented outside the relevant time limits and no extension of time was granted.
Search the full case database by keywords, case details, similar facts and compensation awarded.
Case details come from published tribunal decisions. Always check the official decision before relying on a result.