Case 1300943/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Mr G Mills — 2023
- Case reference
- 1300943/2022
- Decision date
- 7 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gaskell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 7 February 2023 before Employment Judge Gaskell, the claimant appeared in person and the respondent did not appear. The tribunal recorded that the claimant's disability discrimination claim was dismissed upon being withdrawn by the claimant, so no substantive finding on that claim was made.
The tribunal then dealt with the claimant's claim for unlawful deductions from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Pursuant to Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the tribunal found that claim well-founded and made an award payable by the respondent in the sum of £109.
The judgment records a total award of £109. No separate breakdown for different heads of loss is given in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's disability discrimination claim was dismissed upon being withdrawn by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Found well-founded under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and awarded £109. | Upheld | — | £109 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £109
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.