Case 1801146/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Henderson v Mr Anthony Canning and 3 others — 2020
- Case reference
- 1801146/2020
- Decision date
- 12 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Date
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Miss L Henderson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment by Employment Judge Maidment. The first respondent failed to comply with the Tribunal's order sent on 12 August 2020, so the first respondent's response was struck out. The second respondent did not submit a response, and judgment was entered against her under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On the merits, the tribunal found that the first and second respondents had made an unauthorised deduction from Miss Henderson's wages. It ordered them to pay the claimant the gross sum of £744.
The claimant's complaints against the third and fourth respondents were dismissed. The tribunal recorded that neither of them had been the claimant's employer, and that the third respondent was not a legal entity.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The first respondent's response was struck out after failure to comply with the Tribunal's order sent on 12 August 2020, and the second respondent failed to submit a response so judgment was entered against her under Rule 21. The tribunal found that the first and second respondents had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered them to pay the gross sum of £744. The claimant's complaints against the third and fourth respondents were dismissed because neither had been the claimant's employer and the third respondent was not a legal entity. | Upheld | — | £744 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £744
- 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.