Case 1401641/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Jacomb v Biosecurity Solutions Limited C/O Richard James Fraser — 2022
- Case reference
- 1401641/2022
- Decision date
- 29 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Jacomb
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Bristol Employment Tribunals on 15 May 2022. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined that the claim could properly be decided under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On the papers, the tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction of £7,956.74 gross from the claimant’s wages by failing to pay those wages, and an unlawful deduction from wages of £357.25 gross by failing to pay bonus pay. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay those sums to the claimant.
The tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay £618.76 as compensation for expenses incurred by way of bank charges. The judgment records a total sum payable of £8,932.75.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages by failure to pay wages; the tribunal ordered payment of £7,956.74 gross. | Upheld | — | £7,957 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unlawful deduction from wages by failing to pay bonus pay; the tribunal ordered payment of £357.25 gross. | Upheld | — | £357 |
| Other | Compensation for expenses incurred by way of bank charges. | Upheld | — | £619 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,933
- across all upheld claims
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.