Case 1401942/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Geaves v Castleman Accident Repair and Service Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1401942/2021
- Decision date
- 10 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Geaves
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge Livesey found that Castleman Accident Repair and Service Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr J Geaves' wages. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay him the gross sum of £1,586.92.
Mr Geaves' unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed. The tribunal recorded that he did not have sufficient service to bring a claim under s.108, and that he had failed to provide a reason why the claim should otherwise proceed in response to the Tribunal's letter of 11 June 2021.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,586.92. | Upheld | — | £1,587 |
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was dismissed because the claimant did not have sufficient service to bring a claim under s.108 and did not provide a reason why the claim should otherwise proceed in response to the Tribunal's letter of 11 June 2021. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,587
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 ERA 1996
- Rule 21 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.