Paystream My Max Ltd

Case Summary

The case focused on unlawful deduction from wages. The tribunal found that the claimant's rate of pay was in line with the contractual agreement and he had affirmed it, dismissing the claim.

The tribunal found that the claimant's rate of pay was in line with the contractual agreement and he had affirmed it, therefore the deduction from wages was lawful and not unlawful.

• •What is the Claimant’s contractually agreed rate of pay?
• •Was the Claimant paid less than the contractually agreed rate of pay?
• •Has the Claimant affirmed the rate of pay?

Case No. 6006396/2024 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr R Amin Respondent: Paystream My Max Limited Heard at: Manchester (in public; via CVP) On: 22 nd April 2025 Before: Employment Judge Anderson (Sitting Alone) Representatives For the claimant: In Person For the respondent: Mr Johnson (Head of Legal) JUDGMENT 1. The claim of unlawful deduction from wages is not well founded and is dismissed. REASONS Oral reasons having been given at the hearing, the Claimant then requested written reasons which are now provided. Introduction 1. The Clamant Mr. Amin claims unlawful deduction from wages against his employer Paystream My Max Limited Procedural Matters 2. Previously, a hearing was listed and the Employment Judge determined that there was insufficient time to hear the case in the 90 mins allotted. Therefore, that hearing was converted to a Private Preliminary Hearing for case Case No. 6006396/2024 management purposes. At that hearing, the case was discussed extensively and a lengthy, narrative list of issues was produced covering several pages. 3. Those issues can be distilled as follows: i. What is the Claimant’s contractually agreed rate of pay? ii. Was the Claimant paid less than the contractually agreed rate of pay? iii. Has the Claimant affirmed the rate of pay? iv. If so, was any deduction authorised by statute or the contract of employment? (It is not suggested that the Claimant provided separate written consent out with the written contract). 4. The hearing proceeded by way of video link. 5. The Claimant gave evidence on his own behalf. Mr Johnson gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent. All witnesses gave evidence via oath or affirmation. All witnesses provided a witness statement in advance. 6. The Tribunal had an agreed bundle of documents …