Case 1804830/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs G Chandler v The Greyhound Pub Tong Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1804830/2023
- Decision date
- 23 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs G Chandler
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 30 August 2023. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that part of the claim could properly be determined under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The hearing listed for 20 December 2023 was cancelled.
The tribunal declared that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages. It ordered payment of gross sums of £1,015.86 for unpaid wages, £1,171.90 for unpaid accrued holiday pay, and £328.20 for statutory sick pay.
The tribunal did not award anything in respect of Nest pension deductions. It held that it had no jurisdiction to award compensation for those deductions as part of an unauthorised deduction from wages claim because they are not included in the statutory definition of wages.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal declared that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £1,015.86 for unpaid wages, £1,171.90 for unpaid accrued holiday pay, and £328.20 for statutory sick pay. | Upheld | — | £2,516 |
| Other | The tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to award compensation for Nest pension deductions as part of an unauthorised deduction from wages claim because those deductions are not included in the statutory definition of 'wages'. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,516
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.