Case 1401548/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. C. Wright v Rocket Ronnies (Ryde) Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1401548/2022
- Decision date
- 3 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G. King Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. C. Wright
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Bristol ET on 16 December 2022, before Employment Judge G. King, the tribunal found that Mr C Wright's complaint in respect of arrears of pay was well founded. It ordered Rocket Ronnies (Ryde) Limited to pay £1,456 gross, subject to deductions for tax and National Insurance, and directed that £300 be deducted from that sum before payment of the balance to the claimant.
The tribunal also awarded £1,212 because the respondent failed to provide written particulars of employment. The judgment records both claims as upheld and, on the figures set out in the judgment, the monetary awards total £2,668 before any tax or National Insurance deductions on the arrears-of-pay sum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the arrears of pay complaint well founded and ordered payment of £1,456 gross, subject to tax and National Insurance, with a further £300 deduction directed from that sum before the balance was paid. | Upheld | — | £1,456 |
| Other | The tribunal awarded £1,212 in respect of the respondent's failure to provide written particulars of employment. | Upheld | — | £1,212 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,668
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.