Case 1401658/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Maxwell v Winthrop Woodrow Group — 2022
- Case reference
- 1401658/2022
- Decision date
- 24 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Maxwell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Bristol Employment Tribunals on 17 May 2022. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the matter under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. In that default judgment, the tribunal was satisfied that it could properly determine the claim, or part of it, on the materials before it.
The tribunal held that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from Mr A Maxwell’s wages. The judgment itemised the sums as £190.46 for unlawful deduction, £16,372.42 for deducted but unpaid Income Tax and Employee’s National Insurance, £7,000.30 for unpaid Employer’s National Insurance Contributions, and £1,784.76 for unpaid pension contributions.
The total ordered to be paid to the claimant was £25,347.94 gross. The judgment records no separate split of that amount by head of claim beyond the itemised deductions, and no discrimination, dismissal, or other claims are identified in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Default judgment under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages comprising £190.46, deducted but unpaid Income Tax and Employee’s National Insurance of £16,372.42, unpaid Employer’s National Insurance Contributions of £7,000.30, and unpaid pension contributions of £1,784.76. | Upheld | — | £25,348 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £25,348
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.