Case 1804249/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Hallam v R & L (BMS) Installations Ltd (in creditors voluntary liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1804249/2022
- Decision date
- 20 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bright Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Hallam
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Leeds Employment Tribunals on 24 August 2022. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. On that basis, the tribunal made determinations without a contested hearing, and the hearing listed for 26 October 2022 was cancelled.
The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages succeeded, and the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £1,885.00. The judgment records no separate breakdown for that sum beyond the finding that the wages claim succeeded.
The tribunal also found that the respondent failed to provide the claimant with a written statement of terms and conditions. It awarded compensation of £754.00, described as two weeks' wages, calculated using an average weekly wage from the information provided by the claimant. No other claims or remedies are recorded in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages succeeded; respondent ordered to pay gross sum of £1,885.00 under rule 21. | Upheld | — | £1,885 |
| Other | Tribunal found the respondent failed to provide a written statement of terms and conditions and awarded compensation of £754.00, described as two weeks' wages calculated from the claimant's average weekly wage information. | Upheld | — | £754 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,639
- 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.