Case 1301229/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K J Haynes v Gates of Malvern Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1301229/2022
- Decision date
- 30 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K J Haynes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal entered judgment in default under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent did not present a response within the relevant time limit. On that basis, it found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages and that the respondent had failed to provide written particulars.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £7,840.00 gross for the unauthorised deduction from wages and £2,240.00 gross for the failure to provide written particulars. The extracted judgment records no separate breakdown beyond those two gross sums, giving a total award of £10,080.00 gross.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages and orders payment of £7,840.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £7,840 |
| Other | The judgment states that the respondent failed to provide written particulars and orders payment of £2,240.00 gross. The extracted text does not identify a more specific claim type. | Upheld | — | £2,240 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,080
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21, Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.