Puida v TLC Recycling Ltd Michael Reed and Sarah Collins... [2013] NIIT 00590_13IT (21 August 2013)

Puida v TLC Recycling Ltd Michael Reed and Sarah Collins... [2013] NIIT 00590_13IT (21 August 2013)

The claimant was employed by the first respondent under a contract of employment, was not paid wages and holiday pay due for the period in question, and the first respondent made unauthorised deductions from his wages contrary to Article 45 of the 1996 Order. The claim was presented in time and is well-founded.

Citation
[2013] NIIT 00590_13IT
Parties
Claimant: Tomas Puida; First Respondent: TLC Recycling Ltd; Second Respondent: Michael Reed and Sarah Collins trading as Environment Specialist Consultancy
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
21 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed against first respondent; second respondent dismissed from proceedings.
Legal Topics
Unauthorised Deduction From Wages, Employment Contract, Holiday Pay, Jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal
Employment Law Unauthorised Deduction From Wages Employment Contract Holiday Pay Jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tomas Puida

Claimant

TLC Recycling Ltd

First Respondent

Michael Reed and Sarah Collins trading as Environment Specialist Consultancy

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was employed by the first respondent or the second respondent
  2. 2 Whether there were unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages
  3. 3 Whether the claim was presented within the statutory time limit

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was employed by the first respondent under a contract of employment, was not paid wages and holiday pay due for the period in question, and the first respondent made unauthorised deductions from his wages contrary to Article 45 of the 1996 Order. The claim was presented in time and is well-founded.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed against first respondent; second respondent dismissed from proceedings.

Orders

  • Second respondent dismissed from proceedings.
  • First respondent to pay claimant £3,200.00 for unauthorised deductions from wages.