Case 1402885/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Andrews v Boxtree Trading Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1402885/2022
- Decision date
- 18 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Andrews
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 4 September 2022 and the respondent did not present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. No hearing findings beyond the written judgment are recorded in the extracted text.
On the papers, the tribunal declared under section 12(3) Employment Rights Act 1996 that Boxtree Trading Ltd failed to provide Mr G Andrews with itemised pay statements for April, May, June and July 2022. The judgment does not record any separate monetary award for that declaration.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay Mr Andrews £550. No other remedy components are set out in the judgment extract.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal declared under section 12(3) Employment Rights Act 1996 that the respondent failed to provide itemised pay statements for April, May, June and July 2022. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £550. | Upheld | — | £550 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £550
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- s12(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.