Case 1304163/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Donald Nash v Crouch Logistics Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1304163/2021
- Decision date
- 27 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Donald Nash
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Donald Nash presented a claim against Crouch Logistics Limited (in Administration) on 10 September 2021. The respondent was sent the claim at its registered office on 17 September 2021, did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided the matter could properly be determined under rule 21. The administrators confirmed they had no objection to the claim continuing.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages. It ordered the respondent to pay £1,876, being the amount of those deductions. The judgment records no separate award for any other head of loss.
The tribunal also noted an additional £1,200 claimed by Mr Nash for 'savings withdrawn'. It said the basis for that sum was unclear and that, if awarded on top of the underpaid wages, it would amount to double recovery. That sum was therefore not added to the award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal awarded £1,876 for unauthorised deductions from wages. It noted a further £1,200 claimed for 'savings withdrawn', but said the basis for that sum was unclear and that awarding it in addition to underpaid wages would be double recovery. | Upheld | — | £1,876 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,876
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,876
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.