Case 1304435/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Not present or represented — 2020
- Case reference
- 1304435/2020
- Decision date
- 28 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dimbylow Signed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was entered under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the claims were not disputed and no valid response had been presented.
For Miss Turner, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £2,907.66, calculated as seven weeks at £415.38 per week.
For Mr Hyatt, the tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages, a failure to reimburse expenses incurred, and a failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. The tribunal awarded £12,634.59 for wages, £2,350.83 for expenses, and £1,076.00 for the written particulars failure, with £16,061.42 stated as the total payable to Mr Hyatt.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Miss Turner's claim: unauthorised deductions from wages, awarded gross sum of £2,907.66. | Upheld | — | £2,908 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Mr Hyatt's claim: unauthorised deductions from wages, awarded gross sum of £12,634.59. | Upheld | — | £12,635 |
| Breach of contract | Mr Hyatt's expenses reimbursement claim was upheld; the judgment states the respondent failed to reimburse expenses incurred. | Upheld | — | £2,351 |
| Other | Mr Hyatt was awarded two weeks' gross salary for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. | Upheld | — | £1,076 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,061
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 21
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.