Case 1803025/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Owst (1) Mrs E Owst (2) v Mr Kenneth Dandilly — 2022
- Case reference
- 1803025/2022
- Decision date
- 20 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Owst (1) Mrs E Owst (2)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claims were issued in the North Eastern Employment Tribunals on 23 June 2022. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the claims were heard under rule 21(2) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 before Employment Judge Miller at Hull, remotely by video, on 20 September 2022.
The first claimant, Mr M Owst, succeeded on his claim for unauthorised deductions from wages. The tribunal ordered the respondent, Mr Kenneth Dandilly, to pay Mr Owst the gross sum of £1,595.
The second claimant, Mrs E Owst, also succeeded on her claim for unauthorised deductions from wages. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay Mrs E Owst the gross sum of £1,158. The judgment does not record any other remedy components beyond those gross sums, and the total monetary award is £2,753.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | First claimant's claim that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages succeeded; gross sum ordered to be paid was £1,595. | Upheld | — | £1,595 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Second claimant's claim that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages succeeded; gross sum ordered to be paid was £1,158. | Upheld | — | £1,158 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,753
- 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.