Case 1801618/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Fulton v Greener Living Ltd (In Administration), and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 1801618/2024
- Decision date
- 10 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Deeley
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss C Fulton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss C Fulton presented her claim in the Leeds Employment Tribunal on 13 March 2024 against Greener Living Ltd (In Administration) and the Secretary of State. The administrators on behalf of the respondent did not defend the claim, and Employment Judge Deeley recorded that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The Tribunal declared that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £3,500.00. The judgment also records that the hearing listed for 18 July 2025 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent did not defend the claim. The Tribunal determined the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure and ordered payment of the gross sum. | Upheld | — | £3,500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,500
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.