Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The decision of the tribunal is that the claimant�s claim of unlawful deduction from wages is well-founded and the tribunal makes a declaration to that effect.� The respondent is hereby ordered to repay to the claimant the agreed amount of the deduction, that is �464.97 (gross).
The claimant appeared and was represented at the hearing by Mr J Boeurs, voluntary representative.
The respondent appeared at the hearing and was represented by Ms Rachel Best, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by the Crown Solicitors Office.
1.������ The wages properly due to the claimant under his contract of employment and therefore whether the respondent made an unlawful deduction from the claimant�s wages.
2.������ By way of preliminary point, the respondent�s counsel raised an argument that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim.� This was based on case law, including the cases of SIP Industrial Products v Swinn 1994 IRLR 323 and Sunderland Polytechnic v Evans 1993 ICR 392 . � It was argued that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine the lawfulness of a deduction where it was made for the purpose of recovering an over-payment.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.